PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Property

447 U.S. 74 (1980)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyshopping centerright to excludetakingsdue processfree speechstate constitutional lawprivate property

Facts

PruneYard was a privately owned shopping center open to the public and containing extensive common areas, numerous shops, restaurants, and a movie theater. It enforced a nondiscriminatory policy barring publicly expressive activity, including petition circulation, unless directly related to its commercial purposes. Appellee high school students peacefully set up a card table in the central courtyard, distributed pamphlets, and solicited signatures for petitions opposing a United Nations resolution against Zionism. A security guard told them to leave under PruneYard's policy, and they departed and sued for access.

Issue

May a state, through its constitution as interpreted by its highest court, require a privately owned shopping center open to the public to permit individuals to exercise state speech and petition rights on its property without violating the owner's federal constitutional rights under the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, or First Amendment? Does Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner bar such state-law protection of expressive activity on shopping center property?

Rule

A state may, in its own constitution, grant broader free speech and petition rights than the Federal Constitution and may require access for such expression on privately owned shopping center property open to the public, so long as the restriction on property rights does not amount to a taking without just compensation, is not unreasonable under due process, and does not infringe the owner's First Amendment rights. Whether such a property restriction is a taking depends on factors including the character of the governmental action, its economic impact, and its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.

🔒

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 highest court of Oregon interprets the Oregon Constitution to give residents a right to peacefully gather signatures in the open concourse of a large privately owned retail complex in Portland, so long as they comply with neutral rules on location and hours. The complex owner argues that because the Federal Constitution does not itself require access when public sidewalks are nearby, Oregon is forbidden to create that access right under state law.

Which is the strongest response to the owner's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that prior federal cases established only that the Federal Constitution does not itself create a right of access to privately owned shopping-center property. They do not bar a state from adopting more expansive speech and petition protections under its own constitution. The only remaining question is whether the state-created access rule violates some other federal constitutional guarantee, such as the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, or the owner's First Amendment rights.