Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPublic Forum DoctrineSolicitation on Government Propertynonpublic forumairport terminalssolicitationgovernment as proprietor

Facts

ISKCON members practice sankirtan, which involves going into public places, distributing religious literature, and soliciting funds, with the primary purpose of raising money for the movement. The Port Authority owns and operates Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark airports, and retains control over certain terminal areas that are open to the general public and contain commercial establishments. Virtually all visitors to the terminals are there for air-travel-related purposes, such as passengers, those meeting passengers, flight crews, and employees. The Port Authority adopted a regulation prohibiting, inside terminal buildings, the repetitive sale or distribution of merchandise, the sale or distribution of printed materials, and the solicitation and receipt of funds, while permitting solicitation and distribution on sidewalks outside the terminals.

Issue

Whether the interior of a publicly operated airport terminal is a public forum for First Amendment purposes, and if not, whether a regulation prohibiting repetitive solicitation of money inside the terminal is a valid restriction on protected speech. More specifically, the question was whether the solicitation ban was reasonable under the standard governing nonpublic fora.

Rule

Government property is analyzed under a forum-based approach: traditional and designated public fora are subject to strict scrutiny, while all remaining government property is a nonpublic forum where speech restrictions are valid if they are reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression because of disagreement with the speaker's viewpoint. A public forum is not created by government inaction or by mere public access; it must arise from tradition or from intentional opening for public discourse.

🔒

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.

The City of Seattle operates a publicly owned ferry terminal building containing ticket counters, waiting areas, restaurants, and gift shops. Almost everyone inside is boarding a ferry, meeting arriving passengers, or working there. The city bans repeated face-to-face requests for immediate donations inside the building but allows them on the outside walkway.

If a religious charity challenges the ban under the First Amendment, how should a court most likely classify the terminal interior?

Explanation. Under the majority's forum analysis, government property is not a public forum merely because the public may enter it. A traditional public forum depends on historical use for expressive activity, and a designated public forum requires intentional opening for public discourse. A travel terminal whose principal purpose is moving passengers, even if open to the public and containing commercial establishments, is a nonpublic forum.