Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner: A Shopping Center Open for Business but not for Dissent

Self-government in the United States is facilitated by adherence to the traditional principles of freedom of speech and private property. The first requirement of a self-governing community is an electorate with sufficient knowledge to regulate its own affairs wisely. Hopefully, that requirement is fulfilled by free interchange of ideas. But the viability of free speech depends in part on the concept of private property, which secures to the individual an area of insulation from societal influences. Both free speech and private property are constitutionally protected from governmental interference, the former by the First Amendment and the latter by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, comprehensive case law has carefully directed the application of the protections stated in the amendments. However, where there is a conflict between free speech and private property, coupled with only an indirect governmental influence, the situation is more problematic. When the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, it undertook to clarify the relationship between free speech and private property. This note attempts to isolate and define the constitutional doctrine the Court began to develop in that case. It is the author's thesis that the emerging constitutional doctrine circumscribes private property with first amendment limitations whenever the property functions as an essential community forum.