Dear Meg,
A friend (lawyer) had commented as follows, but was unable to find
references off hand. He suggested that I ask you. Can you provide
legal, policy or regulation citation(s) as to the current state of
first amendment rights in front of post offices? As well as a
statement as to the current USPS possition on this matter in clear
language?
thank you,
Nathan
-----------
"... there has been some caselaw that first
amendment activity (not commercial activity) must be allowed on public
sidewalks in front of post offices, and recently the USPS simply declared
that any sidewalk in front of the post offices would be considered public
for purposes of this matter.
This was in reference to:
The exception is referenced in the opening paragraph of 39 CFR 232 Sec 1:
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.
This section shall not apply to — ... (ii) With respect to sections
232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of
postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal
Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent
municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to
such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such
sidewalks.
So, if you've got the right kind of sidewalk to work with, then it
looks like you might be able to carry on political activities near a
Post Office.
[...]
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
497 U.S. 720
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 88-2031.
Argued February 26, 1990
Decided June 27, 1990
[...]
they
were arrested and subsequently convicted by a Federal Magistrate of
violating, inter alia, 39 CFR 232.1(h)(1), which prohibits
solicitation on postal premises. The District Court affirmed the
convictions. It rejected respondents' argument that 232.1(h)(1)
violated the First Amendment, holding that the postal sidewalk was not
a public forum and that the ban on solicitation is reasonable. The
Court of Appeals reversed. Finding that the sidewalk is a public forum
and analyzing the regulation as a time, place, and manner restriction,
it determined that the Government has no significant interest in
banning solicitation and that the regulation is not narrowly tailored
to accomplish the asserted governmental interest.
Held:
The judgment is reversed.
866 F.2d 699, reversed.
---------------
Let me know if it doesn't get through. You could also contact the public
affairs office but I'll try to find on my end also.
----------------
Hello. I've forwarded your inquiry to our Office of the General Counsel
for reply.
Meg
-------------
previous exchange:
--------------
It struck me that the Post Office is still considered federal
property, regardless or its supposed "quasi-governmental" status. It
seemed like there must be some United States Code dealing with
"political rallies" on federal property, so I set about looking for
something. After much digging, I came up with 39 CFR 232 , as
reflected in the SCOTUS case that follows below. Note that 39 CFR
232.1h(1) prohibits the activities suggested by David, with the
exception brought about by the cited SCOTUS case.
The exception is referenced in the opening paragraph of 39 CFR 232 Sec 1:
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.
This section shall not apply to — ... (ii) With respect to sections
232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of
postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal
Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent
municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to
such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such
sidewalks.
So, if you've got the right kind of sidewalk to work with, then it
looks like you might be able to carry on political activities near a
Post Office. But don't bet the farm that the knuckleheads inside will
understand the statutes that govern said activity. In my neighborhood,
it's a moot point: none of the Post Office sidewalks qualifies, as
there are no public sidewalks, but just grass from curbs to buildings.
I suppose that old "store front" Post Offices on "Main" Street may
qualify for the exception, but these days, new facilities are being
built entirely on their own sites, with no other businesses
immediately adjacent. Look for a trend in Post Office landscaping that
puposefully creates sidewalks separate and distinguishable from public
walk ways.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
497 U.S. 720
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 88-2031.
Argued February 26, 1990
Decided June 27, 1990
Respondents, members of a political advocacy group, set up a table on
a sidewalk near the entrance to a United States Post Office to solicit
contributions, sell books and subscriptions to the organization's
newspaper, and distribute literature on a variety of political issues.
The sidewalk is the sole means by which customers may travel from the
parking lot to the post office building and lies entirely on Postal
Service property. When respondents refused to leave the premises, they
were arrested and subsequently convicted by a Federal Magistrate of
violating, inter alia, 39 CFR 232.1(h)(1), which prohibits
solicitation on postal premises. The District Court affirmed the
convictions. It rejected respondents' argument that 232.1(h)(1)
violated the First Amendment, holding that the postal sidewalk was not
a public forum and that the ban on solicitation is reasonable. The
Court of Appeals reversed. Finding that the sidewalk is a public forum
and analyzing the regulation as a time, place, and manner restriction,
it determined that the Government has no significant interest in
banning solicitation and that the regulation is not narrowly tailored
to accomplish the asserted governmental interest.
Held:
The judgment is reversed.
866 F.2d 699, reversed.
[Note: To read the entire rendering, click on the title of the case
above. You will have to register for a free FindLaw account to gain
access to case files.]
-------------
I don't recall the specifics but there has been some caselaw that first
amendment activity (not commercial activity) must be allowed on public
sidewalks in front of post offices, and recently the USPS simply declared
that any sidewalk in front of the post offices would be considered public
for purposes of this matter.
I thought it was an enlightened policy decision.
--------------------
recently the USPS simply declared
that any sidewalk in front of the post offices would be considered public
for purposes of this matter.
do you have a reference?
thanks,
-n
------------
Sorry I can't find a reference for this offhand but I'm sure the Postal
Service can send you a reference if you ask them.
You can write to the Postal Historian Meg Ausman at <address removed>
And ask her if you like