# Amicus Curiae Brief — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0051%3A13 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 407 U.S. 551 ## Text IN THE: 7 Supreme Court of the Mite 8 States. , OcTOBER TERM, 5 ihe WF, nS No. 71-492. | 8 9 “—-> A Vs. bt amones, pias he Ges 402 U. S., MBB eee tree eect eee tee ends f In re. Hoffman, 67 Cal ./ 2a" 45. pekaa ee In re Lane,. 71: Cal. 2a tL ee noe e ew ey. te In xe Wallace, 3 dal. 3a. 289......0.6.3. Lamont v. Postmaster General, . 381 U se. . z ° f : : . ‘ ; rte ‘ | ” : os i P 1 * ‘ ‘ ' uk ; 2°? ; ; a oe J s © Se a ae ‘ . ; . . . * —s XA : - . 2 : . * . ies ww ’ & eo. . ‘ * e ° -the* collection of thousands of registered --vwoters' signatures. on petitions gontaining ; . 1 : - : Ps - <> ° : _ - e e a . z . . aes war 2 ee . : sd > * ° rH ° . - ? : : " : i _Purpose of direct legislation: For the past two and. one half. years People's Lobby has conducted ‘anti pollution campaigns through - AceATELA CS and. the - initiative. process. ; & : Simply stated, the initiative process. in California consists of the placemerit ‘of ‘proposed legislation on the statewide (or | county or. city) . ‘ballot for voter approval by : the legislative Brepowal,: ees The People! - ~ Peoplet s ‘Lobby volunteers were compelled to - leave in:October 1970. That prompted the filing to- enjoin ihterference with the right to collect . Signatures on the premises of Inland Center, ‘which was rejected first by the Superior Court, | and. then by the Court of Appeal, Fourth.. eee ere District,, Diamond v. Bland, 87 Cal. "he the meantime the signature drive ended in failure and the measures did not appess _on. the ballot. ‘mevertheleas. People’ s Lobby» pursued ‘the. matter in the California Supreme Court because of its intention to try again. ‘On December 7,~ 1970 a new initiative drive was launched the drive was conducted peacefully and without \ ee bed - drivetwas mettioned by the Cai stocaii Siptias: es " Court on December « 16, 1970 when it reversed the . Superior Court decision (the Court of Appeal decision having previously been’ vacated when - the Supreme Court originally “granted a-hearing) © and held that the Peoplé“s Lobby did in fact. have. the right, gubject td reasonable. regula- tion, to go onto the premises of Inland Center for the _purpose of the peaceful and orderly | ‘gathering of signatures on petitions and “* dissemination: of. .information = ‘connection therewith: © " "...¢P)laintiffs have filed a Tse: petition with the. Secretary | _. . State and have announced sanueicioa a campaign to qualify‘an initia- ,. tive méasure for the next state. ’ , Re es election." =. . oe Bae es : Diamond v.. Bland, 3 Cal. 3a 653, 7 “OST ERS IO} «FRITS ia, Greatly aseistea by this decision, the People's Lobby proceeded to gather over Bee ee 326,000 valid signatures of Eegistered voters . and in May 1971 the Ciean Environment Act” s qualified for the June 6, 1972 California fet sy statewide election. During the signature gathering campaign throughout California hundreds of volunteer petition carriers went . forth to gather the signatures of fellow citizens who, dissatisfied. with the failure -of the. California legislature. to enaet. -wmeaningful environmental . is ion, eagerly signed the vironment Act petitions. the violence a frustrated public might engage _in if denied the opportunity to’ participate cin the direct democratic Progess of" the — oe initiative. sei i Just as the reapondents in Homart | Development Co. v. Diamond, cert. den. 402 aes - , automobiles and venture: onto shopping center eo 8 A ty j ‘ ©. ve LEP ES BOE NLT BY IE it Sg OT ', keaflet. If a customer goes to a shopping . “« Aa zi ; pay ee N y .. Sidewalks and-malls. Pérsons seeking to. communicate with their fellow citizens can | no longer. reach them except in $0 far as they are on foot at shopping : rs. “In’ Capift-— ornia the people drive everywhere. They . obviously cannot -be. Teieteel a in their auto- mobiles. They cannot be reached while they are. ‘at’ work, and more and more homeowners * “ and ‘tenants are’ prohibiting door'to door |-° solicitation, which is much too time consun- | ‘ ing in any. event... Thus, those seeking to. - communicate with others greatly benefit Wien. permitted to do’ so on shopping centers. With- out@shopping center access, such. persons would . be- effectively prevented from communicating. ‘their message. Television, radio, mewspaper, and magazine media are: beyond the range ‘of | “most persons who must. rely: on the whopping | center as a ROE UM: : | The iio to shopping center owners is non existent. No one buys less. .good simply because. he has taken the oppor tunity to sign a petition or receive a center to purcahse’ a particular item, there is no reason to supposé he will leave empty handed merely because he read the -message on a picket. There would be no detriment if” all. shopping centers were subjected to the same sha Scores ue elt Numerous. shoobine centers have already been prohibited from denying ‘access to those ‘seeking to exercise First Amendment freedoms, and none have suffered. Diamond iv. Bland, 3 Cal.3a 653(1970), cert. den.. sub nom. Homart Development Co. v. Diamond, 402 U.S. 9881971) ; ‘Sutherland v. South Center Shopping Center, _ 3 Wash. App. .833(1971) 5 State. ‘vy. Miller, 280 Minn. 566(1968); Tanner v. Lloyd Corp., 446. F.2d 545(9th Cir. 1971) 3 Schwaftz-Torrance . . Investment Corp. v.: Bakery & Confectionery 7 sr, .- A reversal by this Court will lead to -+ “feelings of frustration and hopelessness on the part of those persons who cannot afford to resort to television, radio) newspapers, or magazines to disseminate their message. Indeed, these “alternatives" are not even ‘available to those like the People's Lobby. who come within a particular provision of the . First Amendment not capable of being exercised ed way af ‘the media: the petition clause. . - THERE ARE HO" REASOWABLE ALTERNATIVES The American \Retail pedaectian amicus: ‘curiae in- support of petitioner. Lloyd, ‘proposes an unworkable and meaningless rule. It states ‘that First Amendment activities may. not be > conducted on private premises open to the : publi c Unless there are no reasonable "effective alter ative means of communication" available... Seepael. s Lobby ‘subaits that as a matter of constitutional law there are no reasonably effective, alternatives to shopping centers. They have replaced the downtown business dis-. trict as the center of commercial activity.. Those seeking. to-exercise First Amendment rights go to them because they provide access -to large numbers: of: persons.. ; The proposed ‘rule would increase liti-— gation and involve difficult fact ‘questions. The ‘proposed rule provides’ no standards. How would the existence of. reasonable alternatives ° be-determined.. Who would determine whether they were reasonable? - Would,. for example, a football stadium with a large crowd-on a- Sunday afternoon five miles from, a shopping center be a reasonable alternative? oe the’ football fan, rushing to make AR ae a kickoff or fleeing to “beat the crowd" after . ° . ‘ ‘ . * ‘ .@ . , ° , ec. the game be compared to the. shopper | leisurely strolling through a mall and pepratne at- -the - windows? * ° The proposed rule would apparently require a movie theatre operator to permit First. Amendment activity in the premises if — there were no other business establishment within a. substantial distance. ‘The. rule would make no sense, and could not be. applied: to the . type of activity involved in Diamond vw.‘ Bland, supra, where the People's ' Lobby was not merely "communicating" ideas '. (the speech clause'of the Pirst Amendment) but was collecting signatutes on environmental initiative. petitions (the petition clause, “OF rn . . - * . ; — o - . ~ J . . ; ‘ é ’ : 7 * * - | . ‘ - 2 . Po ° ci . . ‘ ». . . . . ‘ a re . aa “ . } e : ’ % s ‘ . * ° . . . | . . . ° , ” . . . . é - ° , . . 7 ‘ \ Sal . . ° , * eo, t . . . ¢ dl . ” i . . e J & . 3 ‘ ° a Mg ° * : Py é . . . -% ‘ . i , 7 ; ; . 7 p : ° * . , . . . ° 7 ; ° * - s al 1 . £ . . ~& . . e e . . - - 3 Pa ‘ an ~~ > of A Mas é ow ® : *: ‘ a ’ : : ‘ . ? ane -@.¢ ) é . ™ . ” * ° . rules: to govern conduct on their premises, and no. significant. problems have resulted therefrom. . on Since this Court's decision in Amalgamated Food Employees vs. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S.. 308(1968), First Amendment activities have been conducted — on- numerous shopping centers throughout the country without incident. Many people, in ' fact, believed that this Court's decision in Logan Valley covered all First. Amendment activity, and was not limited to labor ges union picketing. The public will surely be . surprised. if this Court abruptly halts a _ tradition consistent with the spirit and. eergees of the First Amendment. ; | CONCLUSION For the reasons. stated bersin . ‘as. well -‘as.those urged by Respondents, the ‘ Court is requested to affirm the decision of the court below. : . Respectfully. submitted, “eenge bee Stdeale (15415 Sunset Blvd.,— Pacific Palisades,.Ca 90272 Attorney for People's | . Lobby, Inc. .. wae CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - .I, Roger Jon Diamond, Seckare as follows: . I. am an attorney at law duly admitted te. : ° practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, and I am the attorney for amicus curiae People's Lobby, Inc., with respect. to the accompanying Amicus: Curiae brief. << Fever ~ —— aN ARS eo: ec 7 on March es +705 /pisSeane to Rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules, I caused the . within Brief of People's Lobby, Inc., as y Amicus Curiae to be served on Petitioners, Respondents, and amici curiae American Retail Federation and Homart Development Co. by placing three copies thereof enclosed ‘in a sealed envelope with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, in ‘the United States. mail at Los Angeles California, addressed _ as follows: : ae Carin. Neil : .c/O0 American Civil Liberties s7, & Union of Oregon | Ninth Ploor,. poyaity BIdg. Portland, Oregon 97204 Cadeye Black, a ft Robert J. Miller. , Soe Black, Kendall, Tremaine, — Boothe & Higgins 7 520.S.W. Sixth Avenue = 3 Portland, Oregon 97204 . cng e? cag John H. Pickering - Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. 900 17th Street, N.W. Waap ington, D.C. ‘20006 Lawrence M. Cohen . Lederer, Fox and Grove 111 West Washington Street. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Jerry Kronenberg Borovsky, Elirlich & Kronenberg - ! - 170 S. LaSalle Street _ SOR ice oe Chicago, Illinois 60603 Gerarda\c. Smetana. 925. S./Homan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60607 AXan ‘Raywia. Cole, syldtrs. & serosa. 2011 Eye Street, N.W. Piggy Se: -Washington, D. c. 20006 Be J.S. eli Sage": Homart Development Co. 925 SH Homan Avenue. Cateneds Illinois 60607. - Allen s) Gresham Sate Lonergan, Jordan, Gresham ‘& Varner _ 398 West Fourth Street ; San steed arash neat California 92401 A a ‘I declare wahew penalty of eiesaue: that the foregoing is true and OOEESeRe ° {is . ° "'\, = Buecuted on’ March 31, 1972 at aN Los. } Angeles, California op Se ee : a tf f Rohr Jon: mes oF - fee © --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0051%3A13. Public record. Not legal advice.