Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Greer v. Spock

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst Amendmentmilitary reservationspublic forumFirst Amendmentpublic forummilitary baseFort Dix

Facts

Fort Dix is a United States Army training reservation over which the Federal Government exercises exclusive jurisdiction, and civilians may enter unrestricted areas, use roads and footpaths, and visit the base. Fort Dix regulations prohibited demonstrations, protest marches, and political speeches on the reservation, and also prohibited distribution or posting of publications without prior written approval. In 1972 several presidential and vice-presidential candidates sought permission to enter Fort Dix to distribute campaign literature and discuss election issues with service personnel and dependents, but the commanding officer denied the request under those regulations. Other respondents had previously been removed and barred from reentering the base for distributing unapproved literature.

Issue

Whether the First Amendment required Fort Dix to allow civilian political candidates and others to enter the military reservation to make campaign speeches and distribute leaflets in areas open to the public, and whether Fort Dix regulations banning partisan political activity and requiring prior approval for literature distribution were unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

Rule

A place owned or operated by the Government does not become a First Amendment public forum simply because the public may freely visit it. The Government, like a private owner, may preserve property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated, and a military installation exists to train soldiers, not to provide a public forum; therefore civilians have no generalized constitutional right to engage in political speech or leaflet distribution there. Where military authorities have not abandoned their special interest in controlling expression on the reservation, they may maintain evenhanded restrictions on partisan political campaigning and may regulate literature distribution to avert a clear danger to military loyalty, discipline, or morale.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Redstone Army Training Center near Huntsville, Alabama allows civilians to enter its museum, chapel, and several roads without advance permission, though military police patrol the grounds and posted signs warn that all vehicles are subject to inspection. During a governor's race, Dana Mercer, a civilian candidate, demands access to hold a stump speech in a public parking lot on the installation, arguing that unrestricted civilian access has made the lot a public forum.

Who has the better First Amendment argument?

Explanation. The majority held that free public access alone does not transform government property into a First Amendment public forum. A military installation exists to train soldiers, not to provide a public forum, and civilians have no generalized constitutional right to engage in political campaigning there. The candidate's argument incorrectly treats publicly accessible military property as equivalent to ordinary municipal streets or parks.