Heffron v. Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness

Notable Items:

Facts:

Per Rule 6.05 of the Minnesota Agricultural Society, sale or distribution of any merchandise, including printed or written material must take place at a duly licensed location on the fairgrounds
Violators are subject to arrest and expulsion from the fairgrounds.
Rule does not prevent organizational representatives from walking about the fairgrounds and communicating the organization's views to fair patrons in face-to-face discussions.
Space in the fairgrounds is rented in a nondiscriminatory fashion on a first-come, first-served basis
125 acre site, the bulk of which is covered by permanent buildings, temporary structures, parking lots, and connecting thoroughfares.
115k persons on weekdays and 160k on weekends.
Society authorized to make all "bylaws, ordinances, and rules, not inconsistent with law, which it may deem necessary or proper for the government of the fair grounds. . . ."
The trial court entered temporary orders to govern the conduct of the parties during the 1977 Fair.
When that event concluded, and after a hearing, the trial court granted the state officials' motion for summary judgment, upholding the constitutionality of Rule 6.05
On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rule 6.05, as applied to respondents, unconstitutionally restricted the Krishnas' religious practice of Sankirtan. 299 N.W.2d 79 (1980).
Society's proffered justifications for the Rule as inadequate; interests could be served by means less restrictive means.
We granted the state officials' petition for writ of certiorari

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Rule 6.05, on its face and as applied, violates First Amendment rights.
Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Rule suppressed the practice of Sankirtan, a religious ritual that enjoins its members to go into public places to distribute or sell religious literature and to solicit donations for the support of the Krishna religion.

Issues:

"The question presented for review is whether a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may require a religious organization desiring to distribute and sell religious literature and to solicit donations at a state fair to conduct those activities only at an assigned location within the fairgrounds, even though application of the rule limits the religious practices of the organization."

Holding(s):

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Rule 6.05 ... is a permissible restriction on the place and manner of communicating the views of the Krishna religion.
Rule 6.05 is not based upon the content or subject matter of speech
Nor is the Rule 6.05 (allocating space on a first-come, first-served basis) have the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.
The State's interest in maintaining the orderly movement of the crowd at the fair is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a time, place, or manner restriction
"Inclusion of peripatetic solicitation as part of a church ritual does not entitle church members to solicitation rights in a public forum superior to those of members of other religious groups that raise money but do not purport to ritualize the process."
improbable that such alternative means would deal adequately with the problems posed by the large number of distributors and solicitors that would be present on the fairgrounds.
Alternative forums for the expression of respondents' protected speech exist ... members may mingle with the crowd and orally propagate their views.

Rationale:

White majority opinion (Burger, Steward, Powell, Rehnquist)

Common ground
- Krishnas' religious views and doctrines is protected by the First Amendment.
- Also protected: the written materials sought to be distributed are sold, rather than given away, or because contributions or gifts are solicited in the course of propagating the faith.
- First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.
- activities protected by the First Amendment, are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
A major criterion for a valid time, place, and manner restriction is that the restriction "may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech."
Rule 6.05 qualifies in this respect, since, as the Supreme Court of Minnesota observed, the Rule applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds.
Rule 6.05 [does not] suffer from the more covert forms of discrimination that may result when arbitrary discretion is vested in some governmental authority.
Rule 6.05 is the need to maintain the orderly movement of the crowd given the large number of exhibitors and persons attending the Fair.
Because the Fair attracts large crowds ... it is apparent that the State's interest in the orderly movement and control of such an assembly of persons is a substantial consideration.
(Enumeration of differences between the public streets and the fairgrounds, both in structure and duration.)
Minn Supreme Ct concluded that, although some disruption would occur from such an exemption, it was not of sufficient concern to warrant confining the Krishnas to a booth.
The justification for the Rule should not be measured by the disorder that would result from granting an exemption solely to ISKCON.
(Practice specific to a particular religion) ritual of Sankirtan have no special claim to First Amendment protection (Contrast pilgrimage or (licensed) religious processions, keeping of vultures for consumption of the dead Zoroastrian ritual)
The court also recognized that some disorder would inevitably result from exempting the Krishnas from the Rule.
(The danger is that other groups would copy ISKCON and multiply the disorder to unbearable proportions.)
Given these considerations, we hold that the State's interest in confining distribution, selling, and,fund solicitation activities to fixed locations is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a place or manner restriction must serve a substantial state interest.
improbable that the alternative means [less restriction] suggested by the Minnesota Supreme Court would deal adequately with the problems
the Rule does not prevent ISKCON from practicing Sankirtan anywhere outside the fairgrounds.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Brennan concur in part, dissent in part (Marshall, Stevens)

strikes down Rule 6.05 as it applies to distribution of literature.
petitioners have failed to provide any support for these assertions that peripatic distribution of literature and solicitation of donations would create a public danger.
The Court errs, however, in failing to apply its analysis separately to each of the protected First Amendment activities restricted by Rule 6.05.
Rule 6.05 restricts three types of protected First Amendment activity: 1) distribution of literature, 2) sale of literature, and 3) solicitation of funds.
State advances three justifications: 1) maintaining the orderly movement of the crowds; 2) protecting its fairgoers from fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading solicitation practices.; 3) "captive audience" doctrine, is the State's interest in protecting its fairgoers from annoyance and harassment
I quite agree with the Court that the State has a significant interest in maintaining crowd control (1 above)
I also have no doubt that the State has a significant interest in protecting its fairgoers from fraudulent or deceptive solicitation practices. (2 above)
because I believe that the booth Rule is an overly intrusive means of achieving the State's interest in crowd control, and because I cannot accept the validity of the State's third asserted justification I dissent from the Court's approval of Rule 6.05's restriction on the distribution of literature.
Because of Rule 6.05, however, as soon as a proselytizing member of ISKCON hands out a free copy of the Bhagavad-Gita to an interested listener, or a political candidate distributes his campaign brochure to a potential voter, he becomes subject to arrest and removal from the fairgrounds. This constitutes a significant restriction on First Amendment rights.
By prohibiting distribution of literature outside the booths, the fair officials sharply limit the number of fairgoers to whom the proselytizers and candidates can communicate their messages.
Only if a fairgoer affirmatively seeks out such information by approaching a booth does Rule 6.05 fully permit potential communicators to exercise their First Amendment rights.
They have made no showing that relaxation of the booth Rule would create additional disorder in a fair that is already characterized by the robust and unrestrained participation of hundreds of thousands of wandering fairgoers.
The record is devoid of any evidence that the 125-acre fairgrounds could not accommodate peripatetic distributors of literature just as easily as it now accommodates peripatetic speechmakers and proselytizers. (need a tragedy ?)
Because I believe that the State could have drafted a more narrowly drawn restriction on the right to distribute literature without undermining its interest in maintaining crowd control on the fairgrounds, I would affirm that part of the judgment below that strikes down Rule 6.05 as it applies to distribution of literature.

Blackmun concur in part, dissent in part (Marshall, Stevens)

For the reasons stated by Justice Brennan, I believe that Minnesota State Fair Rule 6.05 is unconstitutional as applied to the distribution of literature.
I also agree, however, that the Rule is constitutional as applied to the sale of literature and the solicitation of funds.
preventing fraudulent solicitations ... could be countered "by measures less intrusive" such as disclosure provisions and penal laws prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentations.
There is nothing in this record to suggest that it is more difficult to police fairgrounds for fraudulent solicitations than it is to police an entire community's streets; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 637-638 (1980)
solicitation and sales ... require that the recipient stop in order to receive the message the speaker wishes to convey
literature distribution may present even fewer crowd control problems than the oral proselytizing that the State already allows upon the fairgrounds.
Like Justice Brennan, I would not reach the question whether respondents can claim an exemption from the operation of Rule 6.05 because of their adherence to the doctrine of Sankirtan.