Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lee v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDistribution of literature in airport terminalsFirst Amendmentairport terminalsleaflettingdistribution banPort Authority

Facts

The Port Authority prohibited the distribution of literature in its airport terminals. Respondents challenged that prohibition under the First Amendment. The only action of the Court stated in this opinion text is its disposition of the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the literature-distribution ban. The Court affirmed the judgment that the distribution ban was invalid.

Issue

Whether the Port Authority's ban on the distribution of literature in airport terminals violates the First Amendment.

Rule

As reflected in the Court's disposition, a ban on distribution of literature in Port Authority airport terminals is invalid under the First Amendment.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The Great Lakes Regional Airport Authority operates passenger terminals in Cleveland, Ohio. It adopts a rule forbidding any person from handing out flyers, brochures, or religious tracts anywhere inside the terminals, while allowing travelers to speak with one another and display signs.

If a nonprofit speaker challenges the rule, what is the strongest conclusion under the Supreme Court's majority disposition?

Explanation. The majority disposition affirms that a ban on distribution of literature in Port Authority airport terminals is invalid under the First Amendment. The controlling result is specific: airport-terminal rules prohibiting literature distribution are unconstitutional. The per curiam did not require proof of viewpoint discrimination or announce a different threshold test in its own text. (Derived from Lee v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (1992).)