Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1946

Marsh v. Alabama

326 U.S. 501 | 66 S. Ct. 276 | 90 L. Ed. 265 | 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3097

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a privately owned company town cannot use state trespass law to suppress First Amendment activity in spaces that function like ordinary public town streets and sidewalks.

Background

Chickasaw, Alabama, was wholly owned by Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation, but it functioned like an ordinary town. It had homes, streets, sidewalks, stores, a post office, sewer facilities, and a company-paid deputy sheriff. Its business block was open and freely accessible to residents, shoppers, and travelers from the adjacent public highway.

Grace Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, stood on a sidewalk near the post office and distributed religious literature. The company had posted notices forbidding solicitation without written permission, and it refused to issue Marsh a permit. After she declined to leave Chickasaw, the deputy sheriff arrested her for trespass after warning under Alabama Code Title 14, § 426.

Marsh argued that applying the trespass statute to her religious distribution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Alabama courts rejected that claim. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed because the sidewalk was privately titled and had not been irrevocably dedicated to public use under Alabama law; the Alabama Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Alabama could use its trespass law to punish the distribution of religious literature on the sidewalk of a company-owned town that was open and used by the public like an ordinary municipality.

Holding

No. Alabama could not constitutionally enforce the company’s ban on religious literature distribution through criminal trespass punishment in this company town.

Reasoning

If Chickasaw had been municipally owned, settled First Amendment doctrine would have barred the government from completely prohibiting the distribution of religious or political literature on its streets, sidewalks, and public places. A government also could not make that activity depend on a permit that an official was free to deny at will.

The Court rejected the proposition that a single corporation’s legal title to an entire town resolved the constitutional question. Private ownership does not invariably confer absolute dominion. As an owner opens property for public use and operates it in a way that serves public functions, its control is correspondingly limited by the legal and constitutional rights of those who use the property.

Chickasaw’s business block and sidewalks were not meaningfully different in their operation from those of any other town. The public could enter freely, use the stores and post office, and travel the streets and sidewalks. The public therefore had the same interest in keeping channels of communication open that it would have in an ordinary municipality.

The Alabama courts’ conclusion that the sidewalk had not been dedicated to public use settled a question of state property law, but it did not settle the federal constitutional issue. A state cannot allow a corporation to use property as a town and then enforce, through criminal law, restrictions on fundamental freedoms that a municipal government could not impose.

People who reside in company towns remain citizens entitled to receive uncensored information and to participate in civic life. When property rights conflict with the freedoms of press and religion in a community functioning as a town, the Court gave the First Amendment freedoms a preferred position. Alabama’s criminal enforcement of the company’s restriction therefore violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Concurrences

Justice Frankfurter

Reasoning

Justice Frankfurter agreed that the conviction had to be reversed because, under the Court’s then-recent First Amendment decisions, religious and other speakers enjoyed specially protected freedom to distribute ideas. That protection could not turn on a state court’s technical determination that privately owned property had not been dedicated to public use.

In his view, a company town is a town for purposes of the civil-liberties conflict at issue. State law may define the ownership relations among the company, residents, and businesses, but property labels cannot control when those relations intersect with constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, and press.

Justice Frankfurter did not join the majority’s reliance on analogies to Commerce Clause limits on private operators of highways and similar facilities. Commerce Clause questions concern the allocation of state and national authority, while the First Amendment operates as a denial of governmental power to abridge the protected freedoms.

Dissents

Justice Reed

Reasoning

Justice Reed, joined by Chief Justice Stone and Justice Burton, accepted that freedoms of religion, speech, and press receive broad constitutional protection, but maintained that they are not absolute as to either place or manner. In his view, the Court for the first time gave a religious speaker a constitutional privilege to remain on private property after the owner had ordered her to leave.

The sidewalk was privately owned, had not been dedicated to public use, and lay only a short distance from a public highway where Marsh could have distributed her literature without trespassing. The company’s decision to permit public access for shopping and business did not, in the dissent’s view, give every speaker a right to use the property for religious solicitation against the owner’s wishes.

Justice Reed warned that the majority’s rule lacked a principled boundary. If opening private property to customers or invitees creates a constitutional right for strangers to conduct religious or expressive activity there, courts would have to draw uncertain lines among company towns, private passways, resorts, amusement sites, and other privately owned places open for limited purposes.

The dissent also distinguished decisions protecting union solicitation on employer property. Those decisions rested on a statute regulating the employer-employee relationship, not on a constitutional right of outsiders to enter private land. The state could promote religious information and civic education in company towns, Justice Reed reasoned, but it need not commandeer private property without compensation to do so.