-The following U.S. Supreme Court opinions should be assumed to be opinions of the Supreme Court of Chaos (the highest Federal Court with jurisdiction over the State of Confusion)

-Marsh v Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 US 308 (1968) Llyod Corp. v. Tanner, 407 US 551 (1972) Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 US 507 (1976)

- Additional Cases: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 US 74 (1980) [California should be assumed to be a state with a constitution very similar to Confusion's]

- Bock v. Westminster Mall Company, 819 P. 2d 55 (Colo. 1991) [You should assume this is a State of Confusion Supreme Court opinion, and that all references in the opinion to "Colorado" instead refer to the State of Confusion, including all references to cases, statutes or the state constitution.]

HYPOTHETICAL

The Mall (TM) is a regional shopping center located in the city of Fort Baffle in the State of

Confusion. The primary geographic area served by The Mall includes Fort Baffle and

numerous other communities in the northern part of Confusion. The Mall has about 150 retail

stores, anchored by three large department stores, a home improvement 'big box store', a 'big

box' sporting goods store and a 'big box' store specializing in seasonal outdoor equipment

such as skis, snowboards, wake boards, water skis and other types of season-specific gear.

The Mall covers an area of about 200 acres, and Conundrum Street, a public roadway, runs

across the edge of Mall property about 200 yards from the property line separating a parking

structure from The Mall buildings. There is a 'skybridge' over Conundrum Street that connects

the parking structure to The Mall. A bus stop utilized by both City busses and shuttles owned

and operated by The Mall sits adjacent to the parking structure, protected from the weather by

the skybridge. The City busses that utilize this stop run on routes that cross Mall property on

Conundrum Street but that otherwise serve routes that run to various parts of the City.

The Mall property includes parking for approximately 7000 vehicles and features a small

amusement park with rides for children ages 5-15 run by The Mall. The total area of The Mall

is nearly 1.5 Million square feet, of which about 250,000 square feet are common areas which

include a "food court" with common dining areas, restrooms, corridors with seating areas,

fountains and various plants and other decorations. There is a central 'courtyard' area with a

large fountain and where seasonal events (such as pictures with Santa Claus) are held and

where local school groups are invited to perform from time to time.

Although The Mall accounts for nearly The Mall and its common areas are open to the public

without charge, except for the amusement park rides which are offered on a pay-per-ride basis

or for which a day pass may be purchased. The Mall has regular hours that vary seasonally.

No purchase is necessary for members of the public to utilize the common areas, though there

is a fee of $5/day for parking in any of The Mall's parking areas.

The Mall has a "no solicitation" policy described by management as a "strict prohibition on

controversial activities, political activities, distribution of literature or handbills or solicitation of

any kind" on Mall property, including parking areas.

Despite this policy, The Mall has permitted a variety of activities by numerous groups that

include using common areas at The Mall to disseminate the groups' messages. Voter

registration events conducted by the county are held several times per year in various common

areas. Events saluting the armed services and service members have been permitted from

time to time. Local schools are permitted to display student art and to have their choirs, bands

and chamber orchestras perform in the 'courtyard', and various youth groups including scouts

and sports teams are commonly permitted to conduct fundraising and recruitment events in

various common areas and to distribute literature about their programs. The Salvation Army is

permitted to have its bell ringers at the entrances and in other high traffic areas during the

holiday season, and there are several city and county offices within The Mall, including a police

substation regularly staffed by four uniformed officers and two plain clothes detectives who

respond to calls both at The Mall and in the adjoining parts of the city. These officers also

commonly walk the corridors and outdoor walkways of The Mall while on duty. The Mall also

employs a private security company.

The Mall was substantially remodeled and renovated with work completed in September, 2020.

The project included improvements to drainage and roadways on The Mall property, including

a major renovation of Conundrum Street as well as rebuilding the entrances to The Mall's

parking facilities and the City roadways adjoining these entrances. These improvements were

paid for in large part by funding from the City's development department, streets department

and parks department which is responsible for installation and maintenance of medians and

walkways adjacent to city streets, including those on Conundrum Street.

In November, 2020 Tommy P. Culiar, a well known local resident with a reputation for extreme

and controversial political and social views, rode a City bus to the stop on Conundrum Street

outside The Mall structure. P. Culiar had with him roughly 20,000 pamphlets advocating

granting voting rights to marsupials in order to, "combat the systemic discrimination against

kangaroos' right to carry their young in a pouch instead of a pram." P. Culiar began distributing

his materials and engaging people around the bus stop and slowly made his way up the stairs

to the skybridge and eventually into The Mall's main building. Other than possibly causing

some doubt about his mental health, P. Culiar was not disruptive or aggressive, nor did he act

in a threatening manner.

Officer Blart of The Mall's security service came across P. Culiar in a Mall corridor and advised

P. Culiar that passing out the literature was political activity prohibited by The Mall's 'no

solicitation' policy. Blart asked P. Culiar to leave and advised him he would be subject to arrest

for trespassing if he did not do so. P. Culiar complied with the request, returning to the bus

stop on Conundrum Street where he continued distributing his literature and engaging with

those willing to hear his message.

About an hour later, Blart was patrolling the skybridge and observed P. Culiar at the bus stop.

Blart immediately radioed the duty officer at the police substation in The Mall and requested

backup for "a high-risk contact with a trespasser." P. Culiar saw Blart approaching and

immediately ran into the parking structure where he was quickly lost among the thousands of

cars. P. Culiar continued distributing his literature in the parking structure until about 45

minutes later when Blart along with Officer Ovr Zealous, one of the plain clothes city officers,

rounded a corner and bumped into P. Culiar. Blart immediately grabbed P. Culiar and

attempted to subdued him. Zealous identified herself as a police officer and showed her

badge. P. Culiar did not resist and was peacefully arrested for trespass pursuant to the City's

trespass ordinance. P. Culiar was held briefly at The Mall police substation for processing and

then escorted off of Mall premises and released. P. Culiar's trial on the trespass charge

remains pending due to a huge backlog in the court due to shutdowns and other docket

interruptions due to a pandemic.

QUESTION:

Now, using the principles, reasoning and conclusions from the cases cited

before the hypothetical and any additional material that may be relevant advise the City

and The Mall's ownership regarding the strengths and weaknesses of P. Culiar's claim that the

'no soliciting' policy is an unlawful restraint on free speech. You need to throughly discuss the

relevant legal principles and make clear and direct connections to the facts of P. Culiar's

situation that support your conclusion regarding P. Culiar's likelihood of success. This is NOT

an item about the injunctive relief sought, and you SHOULD NOT focus on the elements that

must be proved to obtain an injunction.