Use of a mall as a public place for protests

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1221/Why-the-Mall-of-America-is-suing-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-video


Its been a few years since I was in conlaw, but weren't there cases that already said malls are defacto public places??

[loki13]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1221/Why-the-Mall-of-America-is-suing-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-video


Its been a few years since I was in conlaw, but weren't there cases that already said malls are defacto public places??

No. See, inter alia, Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board. But see California (which has a specific protected right for malls, because of course California does). 

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

There was a case where people WON the right to protest in the malls (I just cant recall which one it was)
-Oh well, based on the CA specific laws you mentioned, how do you think this case will turn out?
I can't imagine any elected/or even appointed by an elected official, judge will want to rule against BLM

Stuff like this is why Supreme Court has to be appointed for life. Can you imagine the lynchmob that would out for Scalia otherwise??

[loki13]

The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

From a PURELY conlaw perspective I could see it as being "not very interesting" but as a public hysteria pumped up by the media, with the "lets burn the whole town down" mentality (a very real reality as the not very distant past has shown us) situation, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I mean, look at how scared people were to even ask people to stop going full retard on innocent brunchers in situations like this:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/racist-black-protesters-target-white-people-eating-brunch-at-new-york-city-restaurants/ 

[Maintain FL 350]

The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

Yes, that sounds right.

I'm drawing on conlaw that I haven't studied in several years, but I seem to remember that the "mall case" had to do with an outdoor, uncovered shopping center. An indoor covered mall is significantly different, if for no other reason that it's more difficult for shoppers to avoid noisy protestors if they don't want to be subjected to obnoxious chanting and ridicule.

The parking lot and sidewalk in front of the mall may be different, but inside is clearly private property.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

Yes, that sounds right.

I'm drawing on conlaw that I haven't studied in several years, but I seem to remember that the "mall case" had to do with an outdoor, uncovered shopping center. An indoor covered mall is significantly different, if for no other reason that it's more difficult for shoppers to avoid noisy protestors if they don't want to be subjected to obnoxious chanting and ridicule.

The parking lot and sidewalk in front of the mall may be different, but inside is clearly private property.

If it was ANY USUAL mall I'd be more inclined to believe that, BUT they are assuming the "regular state duties" in a lot of ways. Remember the cases with the privately owned towns? This is pretty much that. The place is HUGE, with full time residents living inside of it, STATE PAID police/post office/etc. It feels like a private town to me.

[loki13]

The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

Yes, that sounds right.

I'm drawing on conlaw that I haven't studied in several years, but I seem to remember that the "mall case" had to do with an outdoor, uncovered shopping center. An indoor covered mall is significantly different, if for no other reason that it's more difficult for shoppers to avoid noisy protestors if they don't want to be subjected to obnoxious chanting and ridicule.

The parking lot and sidewalk in front of the mall may be different, but inside is clearly private property.

If it was ANY USUAL mall I'd be more inclined to believe that, BUT they are assuming the "regular state duties" in a lot of ways. Remember the cases with the privately owned towns? This is pretty much that. The place is HUGE, with full time residents living inside of it, STATE PAID police/post office/etc. It feels like a private town to me.

Doesn't matter. You have to look at the arc of ConLaw. The case you're thinking of was from the 1940s, and it involved a corporation owning all aspects of a town (a town being the quintessential example of an accountable state actor) . The state-actor doctrine is a confused mess since then, but has been steadily whittled away (see the contrasting decisions in Tarkanian and Brentwood). Moreover, there is precedent from a much more sympathetic Supreme Court that is directly on point.

To be honest, I don't even know that company towns, to the extent that they exist, would be labeled as state actors- there was litigation over Disney's "ownership" of towns and political subdivisions in Florida (pursuant to deal with the state, Disney and its employees control all political decisions) that determined that the corporate entity was not a state actor.

[Maintain FL 350]

If it was ANY USUAL mall I'd be more inclined to believe that, BUT they are assuming the "regular state duties" in a lot of ways. Remember the cases with the privately owned towns? This is pretty much that. The place is HUGE, with full time residents living inside of it, STATE PAID police/post office/etc. It feels like a private town to me.

Let's not get lost in the weeds here.

There is NO WAY that the current Supreme Court is going to consider the Mall of America as a company town or state actor. Not even close. The company town cases are fairly old and obscure, and the level of control exerted by the parent corporation was far, far beyond anything that Mall of America is engaging in.

The mall is simply private property, open to the public for commercial retail purposes. Can you really imagine that there are five justices who will say "Yeah, we think that the mall is essentially a state actor even though it's private property, and BLM has the right to disrupt commerce." Who would be that fifth vote? Kennedy?

No, as Loki stated, this will end badly for the protestors.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

If it was ANY USUAL mall I'd be more inclined to believe that, BUT they are assuming the "regular state duties" in a lot of ways. Remember the cases with the privately owned towns? This is pretty much that. The place is HUGE, with full time residents living inside of it, STATE PAID police/post office/etc. It feels like a private town to me.

Let's not get lost in the weeds here.

There is NO WAY that the current Supreme Court is going to consider the Mall of America as a company town or state actor. Not even close. The company town cases are fairly old and obscure, and the level of control exerted by the parent corporation was far, far beyond anything that Mall of America is engaging in.

The mall is simply private property, open to the public for commercial retail purposes. Can you really imagine that there are five justices who will say "Yeah, we think that the mall is essentially a state actor even though it's private property, and BLM has the right to disrupt commerce." Who would be that fifth vote? Kennedy?

No, as Loki stated, this will end badly for the protestors.

Supreme Court? Maybe not. But you know there are a few steps inbetween right?