Questions Presented
Whether California’s Moscone Act (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3) and Section 1138.1 of the California Labor Code violate the U.S. Constitution by forcing property owners to open private property to the expressive activities of others based on the content of their speech.
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
June 10, 2013
U.S. Chamber urges review of decision, which says union speech rights trump rights of private property owners
April 25, 2013
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to review the California Supreme Court's decision, which held that states may discriminate based on the content of speech when organized labor is the beneficiary. NCLC's amicus brief argued that states may not give special protection to speech that would otherwise be unlawful, based solely on its content. NCLC pointed out that the California Supreme Court's incorrect decision may have far-reaching consequences. A number of states have enacted statutes similar to the one at issue here and if the California Supreme Court's decision stands, it will signal to other state courts that content discrimination is acceptable when organized labor is the beneficiary. Additionally, NCLC argued that this decision also means that private property owners must acquiesce control of their property to that state when state-preferred speech is at issue.
Willis Goldsmith, Jacqueline Holmes, and Jennifer Bradley Lichter of Jones Day served as the Litigation Center's co-counsel for the amicus brief.
Case Documents
- California Supreme Court decision -- Ralph's Grocery v. UFCW Local 8.pdf
- Cert. petition -- Ralphs Grocery v. UFCW Local 8 (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Brief in Opposition to Cert. -- Ralphs v. UFCW Local 8 (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Reply Brief for Petitioner -- Ralphs Grocery Co. V. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- NCLC amicus brief -- Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf