Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Com'rs of City of Los Angeles, No. 85-5808
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | ALARCON |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 791 |
| Parties | JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., a California non-profit religious corporation and Alan Howard Snyder a.k.a. Avi Snyder, an individual, Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants/Appellees, v. The BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS Of the CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants/Counter-claimants/Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 85-5808 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1986 |
Page 791
corporation and Alan Howard Snyder a.k.a. Avi
Snyder, an individual,
Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants/Appellees,
v.
The BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS Of the CITY OF LOS
ANGELES; et al., Defendants/Counter-claimants/Appellants.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided March 25, 1986.
Joel D. Covelman, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs/counter-defendants/appellees.
James R. Kapel, Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants/counter-claimants/appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before: SNEED, ANDERSON, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
ALARCON, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Board of Airport Commissioners and City of Los Angeles appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of appellees Jews for Jesus, Inc. and Alan Snyder. The district court found that: (1) the Central Terminal Area at Los Angeles International Airport (the interiors of the eight passenger terminals) is a traditional public forum; and (2) Resolution 13787 which prohibits all First Amendment activities
Page 792
within the Central Terminal Area is unconstitutional on its face. The Board appeals primarily because it disagrees with the district court's finding that the Central Terminal Area is a public forum. We affirm.I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs and appellees (hereinafter Jews for Jesus) are Jews for Jesus, Inc., a non-profit religious corporation, and Alan Howard Snyder, a minister of the Gospel for Jews for Jesus. The defendants and appellants (hereinafter the Board) are the City of Los Angeles and the Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, as individuals and as operator of Los Angeles International Airport (hereinafter LAX). The Board, pursuant to City of Los Angeles Charter Sec. 238.4, manages and controls all airports owned by the City of Los Angeles including LAX.
On July 13, 1983, the Board adopted Resolution No. 13787 (hereinafter the Resolution) which states in part:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Airport Commissioners that the Central Terminal Area at Los Angeles International Airport is not open for First Amendment activities by any individual and/or entity;
....
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any individual or entity engages in First Amendment activities within the Central Terminal Area at Los Angeles International Airport, the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles is directed to institute appropriate litigation against such individual and/or entity to ensure compliance with this Policy statement of the Board of Airport Commissioners....
On July 6, 1984, Snyder was distributing free religious literature on a pedestrian walkway in the Central Terminal Area (hereinafter CTA) at LAX when he was approached by a uniformed Department of Airports peace officer. The officer showed Snyder a copy of the Resolution, explained that Snyder was violating the Resolution, and asked Snyder to leave. The officer warned Snyder that if he refused to leave the City would take legal action against him. Snyder stopped distributing the leaflets and immediately left the airport terminal.
On July 17, 1984, Jews for Jesus filed suit in district court seeking a declaration of their rights to distribute religious literature in public areas in the CTA. Jews for Jesus challenged the constitutionality of the Resolution under both the Federal and California Constitutions on three grounds: (1) that it is unconstitutional on its face because it totally bans First Amendment activities in a public forum; (2) that the Resolution is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs because it has only been used to ban certain kinds of communicative conduct such as leafletting by Jews for Jesus; and (3) that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because the term "First Amendment activities" does not give guidance to officials or the public as to what activity is prohibited.
The matter came before the district court for trial on January 6, 1985. Counsel for all parties orally stipulated to the facts and the district court treated the trial briefs as cross-motions for summary judgment without objection from the parties. The district court ruled that the CTA is a traditional public forum, declared the total ban on First Amendment activities unconstitutional on its face, and declined to reach the other issues raised by Jews for Jesus.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the parties stipulated to the facts below, there are no factual issues on appeal. This court reviews de novo the district court's application of the law to the facts on free speech questions. Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 F.2d 1039, 1042 n. 2 (9th Cir.1985).
III. DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court recently enunciated the proper analysis for a First Amendment issue. First, the court must decide whether the challenged activity
Page 793
or speech is protected by the First Amendment, for, if it is not, the court need go no further. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3446, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). If the speech is protected, the court must identify the nature of the forum, because the extent to which the government may limit access depends on whether the forum is public or nonpublic. Cornelius, 105 S.Ct. at 3446-47. Finally, the court must assess whether the justifications for exclusion from the relevant forum satisfy the requisite standard. Cornelius, 105 S.Ct. at 3447.The Board does not dispute that distribution of literature is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1706, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.1981). Both parties agree that the determinative legal issue in this case is whether the CTA is a public forum. That determination will provide the standard we must apply when reviewing the constitutionality of the Resolution.
Jews for Jesus argue that the central terminal areas in airports are traditional public forums open to free expression. The Board asserts that a traditional public forum analysis is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. City of Seattle, No. 78579-I.
...been cited with approval. Jamison v. City of St. Louis, 828 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir.1987); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Bd. of Airport Comm'rs, 785 F.2d 791 (9th Cir.1986); Muir v. Ala. Educ. Television Comm'n, 688 F.2d 1033, 1042 (5th Cir.1982); Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619, 626 (5th Cir.1981);......
-
People v. Tosch, No. 62096
...307 U.S. 496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423, 1436-37. See also Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners (9th Cir.), 785 F.2d 791,cert. granted (1986), 479 U.S. 812, 107 S.Ct. 61, 93 L.Ed.2d 20.) The majority has simply provided no basis for the contention that the road......
-
INTERN. CAUCUS OF LABOR COM. v. Dade County, Fla., No. 85-3575-CIV.
...v. United States, 708 F.2d 760, 764 (D.C.Cir.1983); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, 785 F.2d 791, 793-95 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd on other grounds, 482 U.S. 569, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, ......
-
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, No. 1082
...are traditional public fora for speech activities. See, e.g., Jamison, supra; Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners, 785 F.2d 791, 793-95 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd on other grounds, 482 U.S. 569, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). Prior to the decision in Kokinda, this pane......
-
Sanders v. City of Seattle, No. 78579-I.
...been cited with approval. Jamison v. City of St. Louis, 828 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir.1987); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Bd. of Airport Comm'rs, 785 F.2d 791 (9th Cir.1986); Muir v. Ala. Educ. Television Comm'n, 688 F.2d 1033, 1042 (5th Cir.1982); Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619, 626 (5th Cir.1981);......
-
People v. Tosch, No. 62096
...307 U.S. 496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423, 1436-37. See also Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners (9th Cir.), 785 F.2d 791,cert. granted (1986), 479 U.S. 812, 107 S.Ct. 61, 93 L.Ed.2d 20.) The majority has simply provided no basis for the contention that the road......
-
INTERN. CAUCUS OF LABOR COM. v. Dade County, Fla., No. 85-3575-CIV.
...v. United States, 708 F.2d 760, 764 (D.C.Cir.1983); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, 785 F.2d 791, 793-95 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd on other grounds, 482 U.S. 569, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, ......
-
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, No. 1082
...are traditional public fora for speech activities. See, e.g., Jamison, supra; Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Commissioners, 785 F.2d 791, 793-95 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd on other grounds, 482 U.S. 569, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). Prior to the decision in Kokinda, this pane......