PERRY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (PEA)
vs.
PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS' ASSOCIATION (PLEA)
460 U.S. 37 (1983)

Facts: The Perry Township (Indiana) Board of Education established a collective bargaining agreement with the Perry Education Association (PEA), which won in an election, the role as the exclusive bargaining representative for all teachers in the district. PEA was given access to the inter-school mail system and teacher mailboxes. The terms of the contract prohibited rival unions from having access to the mail facilities. One of the rival unions, PLEA, and two of its members filed suit in U.S. district court against PEA and members of the school board on the grounds that PEA's preferential access to the internal mail system was unconstitutional.

The district court ruled in favor of PEA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed (ruling in favor of PLEA). PEA appealed to the USSC.

Issues: Does granting preferential access to one union constitute a violation of the principle of "access to streets, parks, and other public places," in violation of the 1st Amendment?

Court Held: The USSC reversed the circuit court, ruling in favor of PEA (5-4).

Reasoning: Justice Byron R. White wrote the majority opinion (joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist and O'Connor).

1. There are three categories of "public property"

A. Traditional public forums: such as streets and parks which, by tradition, have been devoted to use by the public for expression of ideas.

B. Limited public forums: public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity--even if the place has not traditionally been used for such purpose.

C. Non-public forums: public property which is not by
tradition or by designation a forum for public communication.

2. School mailboxes are non-public forums. Simply because property is owned by the government does not mean the property is a public forum.

3. The government can regulate public forums through Time/Place/Manner regulations.

Dissent: Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall, Powell, and Stevens) dissented.

1. The exclusive access provision constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" by denying PLEA's ability to communicate to teachers.

2. There is no reason to believe that labor instability would result from equal access to the mailboxes.

Rule:

1. Not all public property constitutes a public forum for communicating ideas.

2. Non-discriminatory time, place, and manner regulations on public forums are permissible.

Significance of the case: This case codifies the rules concerning the various types of public forums.