Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Property

407 U.S. 551 (1972)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyprivate propertyshopping centerFirst Amendmentstate actiontrespasshandbillingMarsh v. Alabama

Facts

Lloyd owned a large Portland shopping center containing privately owned interior malls, walkways, and parking facilities, while surrounding and intersecting public streets and sidewalks remained public. Lloyd had a longstanding, uniformly enforced policy banning all handbilling inside the building complex and malls, though it opened the center generally to the public for shopping and permitted some invited or arranged uses of certain facilities. Respondents quietly distributed handbills in the interior malls inviting people to a meeting protesting the draft and the Vietnam War; the leafleting was unrelated to any shopping-center operation. Security guards told respondents they were trespassing and suggested they continue distributing on adjacent public streets and sidewalks, where respondents then moved their activity.

Issue

May a privately owned shopping center, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prohibit the distribution of handbills on its property when the handbilling is unrelated to the center's operations and adequate alternative public forums are available nearby?

Rule

The First and Fourteenth Amendments restrict state action, not the nondiscriminatory decisions of a private property owner using property for private purposes only. A privately owned shopping center is not dedicated to public use for general First Amendment activity merely because it is open to the public for shopping; Marsh applies where private ownership assumes the full attributes of a municipality, and Logan Valley is limited to expression directly related to the shopping center's operations and situations lacking reasonable alternative channels to reach the intended audience.

🔒

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.

Granite Square, a privately owned shopping complex in Denver, contains interior walkways and atriums open to the public for shopping. Maya Ortiz and Devin Cole quietly hand out leaflets inside the atrium urging support for a statewide prison-reform ballot initiative unrelated to any tenant or mall operation. Security officers order them to leave the interior space, but point out broad public sidewalks bordering all entrances where they may continue distributing leaflets.

If Maya and Devin sue, claiming the First Amendment gives them a right to distribute leaflets inside Granite Square, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not compel a privately owned shopping center to allow handbilling unrelated to its operations when reasonable alternative avenues of communication exist on nearby public streets and sidewalks. Opening property to the public for shopping does not dedicate it to general expressive use.