Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Marsh (Appellant), distributed religious literature on the sidewalks of a company owned town in violation of the town’s regulations. The Appellant claimed her freedom of religion and press were violated and brought suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state cannot, consistently with the freedom of religion and the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, impose criminal punishment on a person for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company-owned town contrary to regulations of the town’s management, where the town and its shopping district are freely accessible to and freely used by the public in general.
Issue. Can a company town deny freedom of press and religion to people in their town?
Held. Reversed and remanded. The fact that the premises where the deprivation of liberty occurred, were held by others than the pubic, is not sufficient to justify the State’s permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties
Dissent. We cannot say the Jehovah’s Witness can claim the privilege of a license merely because the owner has admitted the public to them for other limited purposes.
Discussion. State action is a prerequisite to the assertion of rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. State action will be found when a private actor has acted if (1) the state has delegated a traditional state function to a private entity or (2) because the state has become entangled with a private entity or because the state has approved, encouraged or facilitated private conduct.
The privately owned town performs an exclusive public function and freedom of speech and religion cannot be totally banned in violation of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law Keyed to Sullivan & Gunther (Fourteenth Edition)