Majestic Realty Co., et al. v. Alex Salazar

Petitioners own and operate adjoining shopping centers in Southern California (“the Centers”). The Centers prohibit petitioning and leafletting on their property. Alex Salazar, a self-described “activist,” sought permission to distribute leaflets expressing his belief that “[m]en are not legally and financially responsible for supporting a child that a woman chooses to have,” and “[m]en are not owned by women through their bodies!” Consistent with its policy, the Centers denied his request. Salazar sued, claiming he had a right to engage in expressive activity on the Centers’ property under the California Constitution’s free speech guarantee. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal agreed. Relying on Robins v. PruneYard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979), aff’d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the court held that Salazar’s activity was protected by the state constitution’s free speech provision and did not violate the Centers’ right to exclude under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause or its right to remain silent under the First Amendment compelled speech doctrine. The question presented is: Whether, contrary to PruneYard, a State violates the Takings Clause and the First Amendment when it requires the owners of private commercial property to allow unwanted expressive activity on their land?