top of page

These cases collectively illustrate the nuanced approach the Supreme Court takes in defining and dealing with public forums. They show that while the government is limited in its ability to restrict speech in traditional public forums, it has more leeway in designated and nonpublic forums. The key considerations are the nature of the property, the historical use of the property for expressive activities, and the government's intent in opening or closing the property to such activities.

Public Forums


International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee (1992): The Court held that airport terminals are not public forums. This decision allowed for greater regulation of expressive activities in airports, as they were deemed nonpublic forums due to their primary function as transportation hubs.


Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989): This case involved a city's regulation of sound amplification at public concerts in a city park. The Supreme Court upheld the regulation, demonstrating that even in a traditional public forum, the government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.


Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (1985): This case further refined the concept of designated public forums. The Court held that the government could restrict access to a designated public forum as long as the restrictions were reasonable and not an effort to suppress a viewpoint.


Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): This case established a framework for different types of forums. The Court differentiated between traditional public forums (like streets and parks), designated public forums (areas set aside by the government for expressive activities), and nonpublic forums (government property not traditionally associated with public expression). The government's ability to regulate speech varies depending on the type of forum.


United States v. Grace (1983): The Supreme Court ruled that the sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court building, despite being on government property, are public forums because they function similarly to other public sidewalks. This case highlighted that the nature of the property's use is crucial in determining its forum status.


Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939): This landmark case established the principle that streets, parks, and other traditional public places are considered public forums. The Supreme Court held that the use of these spaces for assembly, communication of views, and discussing public questions cannot be absolutely prohibited but can be regulated in a manner consistent with the First Amendment.


Q: What is a public forum in the context of First Amendment audits?

A: A public forum is a government-owned property that is traditionally open to public expression and assembly, like parks, sidewalks, and public plazas.


Q: Are all areas of government buildings considered public forums?

A: No, not all areas within government buildings are public forums. Offices, secured areas, and employee-only spaces are usually not considered public forums.


Q: Can First Amendment auditors freely record in any public forum?

A: Auditors can generally record in public forums, but must adhere to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions imposed by law.


Q: What constitutes a "non-public forum"?

A: A non-public forum is government-owned property not traditionally open for public expression, where greater restrictions on speech are permissible.


Q: How do restrictions differ between public and non-public forums?

A: In public forums, restrictions on speech must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored, whereas in non-public forums, restrictions can be more extensive as long as they are reasonable and not based on viewpoint discrimination.


Q: Can First Amendment auditors hold demonstrations in public forums without a permit?

A: Depending on local laws, small demonstrations might not need a permit in public forums, but larger gatherings often require one.


Q: Are there limitations on the use of sound amplification devices in public forums?

A: Yes, local ordinances may limit the use of sound amplification devices in public forums to prevent disruptions and maintain public order.


Q: Is leafletting considered protected speech in public forums?

A: Yes, distributing leaflets, flyers, or pamphlets in public forums is typically protected under the First Amendment.


Q: Can public forums be temporarily closed for specific events?

A: Yes, public forums can be temporarily closed for specific events, but the closure must not be based on the content of the speech.


Q: What should auditors do if their rights are restricted in a public forum?

A: If auditors believe their rights are unlawfully restricted in a public forum, they should document the incident and may seek legal advice.


Q: How does the designation of a space as a public forum impact an auditor's rights?

A: The designation determines the level of First Amendment protection; more protection is afforded in traditional public forums.


Q: Are transportation hubs like airports and bus stations considered public forums?

A: These spaces are generally considered non-public forums, where restrictions on speech can be more stringent.


Q: Can First Amendment auditors challenge the designation of a space as a non-public forum?

A: Yes, auditors can challenge such designations, but it often requires legal proceedings to change the status.


Q: Is photography and recording always allowed in public forums?

A: While generally permitted, there may be specific restrictions for reasons of security, privacy, or public safety.


Q: What are "designated public forums"?

A: These are spaces not traditionally open for public expression but have been designated by the government for this purpose, where restrictions are similar to those in traditional public forums.


Disclaimer: The information provided in these FAQs is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult a licensed attorney.

bottom of page