Washington Law Review


The United States Constitution does not require shopping center owners to allow speech activists to engage in expressive activities on shopping center property. The Supreme Court has authorized states to provide greater protections f6r expressive activities than the Constitution provides. Six state supreme courts have interpreted the constitutions of their states to limit protections to the scope of the United States Constitution. Three state supreme courts have interpreted their constitutions to mandate accommodation of speech activists on private shopping center property. This Comment analyzes the treatment of the shopping center conflict both in the United States Supreme Court and in state courts. The Comment concludes that state authority should be reassessed in view of recent Supreme Court decisions that any taking of property from one private party for use by another is a taking requiring compensation under the United States Constitution.

First Page