On May 26, 2026, the owners of two California malls petitioned the United States Supreme Court to strike down California’s compelled speech requirement. They argue that a recent appellate court decision—in favor of a self-identified “eMANcipation” activist who wants to promote his inflammatory rhetoric at their private shopping centers—violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights and should be reversed.
The owners of Majestic Realty Company run two adjoining shopping centers, Citrus Plaza and Mountain Grove, in Redlands, California. To promote a pleasant experience for their customers, they maintain a policy that prohibits invasive activity like soliciting, distributing pamphlets, or advocating for political causes.
An activist named Alex Salazar asked the mall owners for an exception to the policy so he could urge local men to flout child support orders. He demanded they allow him to distribute flyers advocating for men to “join the fight” against child support, promoting his belief that “women do not own men through their bodies,” and asserting that fathers “are not legally or financially responsible for supporting a child that a woman chooses to have” outside marriage.
When the mall owners stuck to their policy, Salazar dragged them to court to force them to platform his ideas.
Because they’re in California, he won. A 1980 Supreme Court decision, PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, held that the State of California could require private businesses that are generally open to the public to host anyone who wants to proselytize on their property without violating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
Under that precedent, it doesn’t matter that the mall owners don’t want to platform Salazar’s provocative activism on their own dime. It doesn’t matter that their vendors don’t want to be associated with it. It doesn’t matter that their shoppers don’t want to hear it. The State Constitution requires them to let Salazar spread his anti-child-support message to the shoppers of Citrus Plaza and Mountain Grove.
By forcing privately owned businesses to platform speakers on their property, the State of California is compelling speech and association—in violation of the First Amendment right to speak or remain silent, without the government coercing you to do either. And by controlling who mall owners admit or exclude from their private property, the State is taking ownership of that property without paying for it—despite its constitutional obligation to provide just compensation for taking property.
That’s why Pacific Legal Foundation stepped in to represent the owners of Majestic Realty at no cost in their petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition urges the Court to reverse the appellate court’s ruling for Salazar and to strengthen protections for free speech rights and property rights by overturning PruneYard.
“For nearly 50 years, California has been forcing mall owners to abandon their free speech rights and property rights in order to run a business. That cannot stand. This case provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn PruneYard and put an end to decades of state-compelled speech. We hope the Court takes that opportunity,” said J. David Breemer, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation.
What’s At Stake?
- You have a constitutional right to speak freely or to remain silent, without the government coercing you to do either. By forcing privately owned businesses to platform speakers on their property, the State of California is compelling speech and association in violation of the First Amendment.
- You have the right to exclude people from your private property. If the government wants to take control of your property and who you allow on it, then the Constitution demands it pay you just compensation for that taking.
