LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
71-492
Petitioner 
Lloyd Corp. Ltd.
Respondent 
Donald Tanner et al.
Advocates
(argued the cause for the petitioner)
(argued the cause for the respondents)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Donald Tanner was a Vietnam War protestor who was distributing anti-war handbills inside Lloyd Center Mall in Portland, Oregon. The handbills were unrelated to the operations of Lloyd Center. Lloyd Center was privately owned by Lloyd Corporation, which prohibited the distribution of handbills inside the mall. While distributing handbills, Tanner and other protestors were informed by mall security that they should stop their distribution or be subject to arrest. The protestors ended their distribution, left the mall, and filed suit against Lloyd Corporation in United States District Court for the District of Oregon alleging their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. The District Court ruled in their favor. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Question 

Were Tanner and the other protestors' First Amendment right to free speech violated by Lloyd's refusal to allow them to distribute handbills on mall property?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Lloyd Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Tanner was not entitled to distribute handbills within Lloyd Center. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell contrasted this case with Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, which allowed protestors to picket a shopping center when their picketing was "directly related" to the shopping center and no "reasonable opportunities to convey their message…were available." Here, Tanner's were unrelated to the operations of the mall, and the protestors had an alternative on the sidewalks immediately outside the mall, which were owned by the City of Portland. Powell characterized equating public property with private property intended for public use – such as the mall – as "reach[ing] too far." Therefore, Tanner and the protestors did not have a First Amendment right to distribute their handbills within the mall.

Cite this Page
LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 July 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_492>.
LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_492 (last visited July 27, 2014).
"LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed July 27, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_492.