High Court Rejects St. Louis Airport’s Demonstration Ban

The Supreme Court today refused to let a St. Louis airport ban all demonstrations, soliciting and distribution of political and religious literature from its terminals.

The justices, without comment, let stand rulings that an airport terminal, like a city street and sidewalk, is a public forum where free-speech rights must be accommodated.

To date, every federal appeals court that has studied the issue has ruled that a government-run airport terminal is such a public forum. But the high court has never said so.

The justices came close last June when they unanimously struck down a sweeping ban on free speech at Los Angeles International Airport.

Saying that officials there tried to create “a virtual First Amendment Free Zone,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the court then that such regulation goes far beyond trying to ease congestion or disruption of traveling services.

“We think it obvious that such a ban cannot be justified even if (the airport) were a non-public forum because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech,” O’Connor said.

Airline Employee’s Protest

The St. Louis case acted on today began when a fired airline employee unsuccessfully sought permission to protest in the Lambert Airport terminal.

Jesse Jamison had been employed with Trans World Airlines for 16 years before he was fired in 1984. According to court records, Jamison believes that his firing was discriminatorily based on his mental illness. He has been diagnosed as a manic-depressive, the court documents said.

After the director of the city-owned airport refused to let Jamison protest against TWA in the airport terminal, Jamison sued in federal court.

A federal judge ruled that the process by which the city and airport director decide who may protest at Lambert Airport violates free-speech rights, but he also ruled that Jamison’s protest could be barred.

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals last Sept. 10 also ruled that the airport’s general ban on such demonstrations is unconstitutional--and it ordered the trial judge to come up with a way to accommodate Jamison’s “right of peaceful picketing.”

In the appeal acted on today, lawyers for St. Louis argued among other things that the lower courts wrongly concluded that an airport terminal is a traditional public forum.

‘Safe ... Pleasant Nexus’

“In stark contrast to parks, streets and sidewalks, which have a unique tradition as sites for assembly and debate, airport terminals have traditionally been devoted to one purpose only--to serve as a safe, efficient and pleasant nexus for air and ground modes of transportation,” the appeal said.

“Therefore, the Lambert Airport terminal is not a traditional public forum,” it added.

In other action, the court:

--Upheld rent control provisions in New York City, rejecting arguments from landlords that the system takes their property without just compensation.

The New York City rent control system, in effect since 1962, generally limits rent increases to 7.5% a year, The justices, citing “want of a substantial federal question,” dismissed the landlords’ appeal of a ruling by the state Supreme Court.

--Agreed to review rulings limiting Korean Air Lines’ financial liability for a 1983 disaster in which 269 people died--the shooting down of a KAL passenger jet over Soviet airspace.