Perry Education Assn. v.

Perry Local Educator’s

Assn
Citation. 460 U.S. 37, 103 S. Ct. 948, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 1983 U.S.

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary. A teachers union was denied access to school district
mailboxes to distribute informational brochures.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The government may reserve a forum for its purpose
as long as the regulation is reasonable and not an effort to suppress views of its
opponents.

POINTS OF LAW - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Moreover, even if we assume that by granting access to the Cub Scouts,

YMCA's, and parochial schools, the School District has created a limited public
forum, the constitutional right of access would in any event extend only to other
entities of similar character.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. Perry Education Assn. (Petitioner) is the union for teachers in Perry
Township. An agreement limited access to district mailboxes to Petitioner only.
Perry Local Educator’s Assn. (Respondent) as a competitor was denied access
to the mailboxes
Issue. Is school district required to provide access to internal mailboxes to
Respondent?

Held. No. The mailboxes are not a public forum. The school district has no
constitutional obligation to allow Respondent to access the mailboxes.

Discussion. A public forum includes such public places as parks and sidewalks.
All communication may not be prohibited in such areas. The regulation must be
necessary to serve a compelling interest and narrowly drawn to be constitutional.
On the other hand, content neutral regulations (time, place, manner restrictions)
must be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant governmental interest while
leaving alternative channels of communication available.

forums
Primary tabs
Overview
A forum in First Amendment law refers to the place in which a
speaker speaks. The First Amendment's protections regarding the
right to speak and assemble will vary based on the speakers’
chosen forum. In Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Educators’ Ass’n, 460
U.S. 37 (1983), the Supreme Court divided forums into three types:
traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic
forums.

Traditional Public Forums

Traditional public forums include public parks, sidewalks and areas
that have been traditionally open to political speech and debate.
Speakers in these areas enjoy the strongest First Amendment
protections. In traditional public forums, the government may not
discriminate against speakers based on the speakers' views. Doing
so is called viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the
First Amendment. The government may, however, subject speech
to reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on its time, place, and
manner. When considering government restrictions of speech in
traditional public forums, courts use strict scrutiny. When the
government restricts speech in a traditional public forum, strict
scrutiny dictates that restrictions are allowed only if they serve a
compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to meet the
needs of that interest.

Designated Public Forums

Sometimes, the government opens public property for public
expression even though the public property is not a traditional
public forum. These are designated public forums. After opening a
designated public forum, the government is not obligated to keep it
open. However, as long as the government does keep the forum
open, speech in the forum receives the same First Amendment
protections as speech in traditional public forums. Examples of
designated public forums include municipal theaters and meeting
rooms at state universities.
Limited Forums
A limited forum is a type of a designated public forum. Here, the
government limits access to a designated public forum to certain
classes or types of speech. In Good News Club v. Milford Central
School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), the Supreme Court held that in a
“limited forum,” the government may discriminate against classes
of speakers or types of speech. However, the government is still
prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. For example,
the government may limit access to public school meeting rooms by
only allowing speakers conducting school-related activities. It may
not, however, exclude speakers from a religious group simply
because they intend to express religious views.

Nonpublic Forums
Nonpublic forums are forums for public speech that are neither
traditional public forums nor designated public forums. According to
the Supreme Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585
U.S. __ (2018), in a nonpublic forum, the Government may restrict
contents of a speech, as long as the restriction is reasonable and
the restriction does not discriminate based on speakers’ viewpoints.
Examples of nonpublic forums include airport terminals, a public
school’s internal mail system, and a polling place.
Finally, some public property is not a forum at all, and thus is not
subject to this forum analysis. For example, public television
broadcasters’ are not subject to forum analysis when they decide
what shows to air.