Forty-five years ago this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a landmark free speech decision, affirming that the state’s constitution’s protections for the right to expression are stronger than those guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In that case, State vs. Schmidtthe Garden State Supreme Court ruled that under New Jersey’s 1947 Constitution, an individual’s right to expression on private property open to public use (in this case, Princeton University) cannot be unreasonably restricted. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court took a different path, gradually narrowing and eventually overturning its initial ruling in a trilogy of private shopping center cases from 1968 to 1976 that held that individuals had a First Amendment right to protest on such premises. schmidtThe bold departure from “lockstep” federal standards has consequences for speech rights far beyond New Jersey’s borders, drawing on precedents in multiple states and even foreign countries.
Arrest in Princeton
The story began on April 5, 1978, when 26-year-old Chris Schmidt, a member of the fringe American Labor Party, was arrested by campus police officers for trespassing at Princeton University as a “disabled person.” He was distributing and selling political literature related to the upcoming Newark mayoral election outside his undergraduate dormitory and cafeteria. At the same time, Mr. Schmidt was running for Trenton City Council on the Labor Party ticket, although he was not a student at the university.
Princeton University rules at the time prohibited nonmembers of the university community from soliciting on campus for political, religious, or charitable purposes without the sponsorship of a campus-based organization and the permission of the dean of students. In contrast, the university allowed students, faculty and staff to do so without administrative approval. Schmidt was not invited or authorized to participate in the April 5 event. But he was certainly aware of Princeton University’s policies. In a previous incident, university officials warned Schmidt that he could be subject to disciplinary action if he solicited without permission.
After his arrest, Schmidt was taken before Princeton Borough Municipal Court Judge Philip Kirchman, who found him guilty of trespassing under state law in October 1978, and sentenced him to a $15 fine and $10 in court costs. However, Kirchman said he still has a degree of skepticism about the idea that “Princeton University, a private university committed to freedom of expression, fulfilled its promise by under the guise of restricting the orderly expression of ideas, by prosecuting Schmidt.”
At this stage in his case, Schmidt had not raised any significant state constitutional challenges to the university’s policies. Such discussions were likely “an afterthought,” Kirchman said. state court report In a recent interview. But there were already signs that Schmidt’s case was unusual for the district court, he said. For one thing, Mr. Schmidt has a high First Amendment challenge, and Mr. Kirchman ordered a press conference to address what he described in an interview as a “serious constitutional issue.” Kirchman recalled that there were also many observers at the proceedings, indicating extraordinary interest from the public. But Schmidt appeared distracted and oblivious to “the beauty of this moment,” Kirchman said.
“State Act” Principle and Judicial Federalism
The following year, when the case reached the New Jersey Supreme Court after a series of unsuccessful appeals, Schmidt reversed course and filed a claim under federal and federal law. and State constitution.
First, it argued that Princeton’s policies limit First Amendment rights because it treats nonstudents and students differently. Schmidt likened Princeton to a privately owned “corporate city,” a quasi-public entity that functioned like a local government and thus qualified as a “state actor,” and was limited by the First Amendment. 1946s Marsh vs. Alabamathe U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a corporate city that performs all municipal services cannot prohibit nonresidents from distributing religious materials on its sidewalks. This principle is similarly binding on Princeton, Schmidt declared.
Second, Mr. Schmidt argued that Princeton was violating his rights under New Jersey’s constitutional provisions that guarantee protections for freedom of speech, assembly, and petition, and that these provisions can be interpreted more liberally than the federal version. This shift toward state constitutions reflects a growing recognition that state bills of rights can be uniquely interpreted by state high courts to “go beyond” the minimum “floor” mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and thus afford a greater degree of protection than their federal analogs. (June 1980, just months before the New Jersey Supreme Court decision) schmidtthe U.S. Supreme Court has Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins State charters (in this case, California) provide broader protections for individual liberty than national charters. in the same way as schmidt, prune yard It concerned state-level rights to free speech on private property. )
The university has hired Nicholas Katzenbach, a former U.S. attorney general and member of its board of trustees, to represent it in the New Jersey Supreme Court. Princeton University argued in its participant brief that “intrinsic” “academic freedom” and “an ancient tradition of self-government” require private universities to be given the power to decide who to exclude from their properties. From Princeton University’s perspective, leaving the contours of campus access for non-students up to the state judiciary would be an inappropriate overreach.
During three hours of oral arguments in February 1980, Princeton University focused its argument on the autonomy granted to private organizations under the federal Constitution. So Katzenbach only mentioned the state’s constitutional claims in his prepared remarks in passing. “Appellants argue that the New Jersey Constitution provides broader rights than the federal Constitution and that it should be construed to limit not only governmental power but also private power,” he said. “I don’t think it gives you broader rights than the First Amendment, but it probably does.”
watershed verdict
In November of the same year, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously vacated Schmidt’s conviction. The 7-0 opinion was rooted in state constitutional protections. “Under the circumstances revealed by the record, it is difficult to conclude that Princeton University, as a private institution, is directly subject to the limitations of the First Amendment,” the court said. However, it continued, state law “can uniquely provide a basis for protecting individual rights of speech and assembly,” and the state constitution provides a “compelling alternative basis for relief.”
To explain how the New Jersey Constitution is more protective of the right to express private property open to public use than the U.S. Constitution, the court focused on the differences in text between the First Amendment and the state equivalent clause in Article 1, Sections 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Charter.
While the language of the First Amendment was negatively worded as a restriction on government interference in the means of expression: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the language of the New Jersey Constitution was positively worded and individual-oriented. Article 1, Section 6 provides: “Everyone shall be free to speak, write, and express his feelings on any subject; no law shall be enacted abridging or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” On the other hand, Article 1, Section 18 stipulates that “the people have the right to freely assemble and consult in the common interest, to make their opinions known to representatives, and to petition for a redress of grievances.”
“Part of the basis for finding extraordinary vitality in the New Jersey Constitution with respect to the rights of individual speech and assembly lies in the language used,” the court declared. The report noted that the state constitution’s affirmative recognition of these freedoms demonstrates the framers’ clear intent to protect these rights “to a broader extent.” Furthermore, the clause restricts not only government action but also “unreasonable oppressive actions by private entities, which have a constitutional obligation not to infringe on the exercise of individual freedom in the name of public use of property,” such as Princeton University.
After setting out the proper “constitutional context,” the court turned to the question at hand: whether the state constitution’s speech and assembly guarantees applied to Schmidt’s distribution of political materials on Princeton’s campus. The court recognized that “the core of the issue” was “the need to balance the legitimate interests of private property with individual freedoms of speech and assembly within the constitutional framework.”
The court explained that, on a “moderate scale,” the parallel rights incorporated in Article 1, Sections 6 and 18 would become more important in private property as it became more open to the public. Therefore, private institutions like Princeton, whose campus facilities and sponsored events are regularly available for public visits, had a greater obligation to ensure that the expression rights of their guests were not violated, as Schmidt did. The court concluded that the university’s unreasonable interference with Ms. Schmidt’s right to self-expression and permitting her on-campus solicitation subject to reasonable “time, place, and manner” conditions were, in fact, “fully consistent” with the university’s professed educational interest in promoting the diverse exchange of ideas.
schmidtthe aftermath of
of schmidt But the story didn’t end there. The university appealed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that it violated the university’s rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. A federal court agreed to hear the case and issued an 8-0 decision in January 1982. by the court The opinion dismissed the appeal as invalid because the university revised its solicitation rules after the incident. Just four days later, a vindicated but compliant Chris Schmidt returned to Princeton’s campus, no longer under threat of arrest.
schmidt‘s legacy continues in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court continues to stretch the state constitution’s speech protections. For example, in 1994, New Jersey Coalition Against Middle East War vs. JMB Realty Co., Ltd.the court relied on schmidt To preserve privately owned regional shopping centers (alternative commercial forums or “downtown business districts” in highly suburbanized states), flyer sellers cannot be eliminated. in 2012 Mazda Brook Commons Homeowners Association v. Kernthe court deployed schmidt Overrides the ban on political signs in apartment building windows. schmidt It has also been cited as an influential model by courts in 23 states and Puerto Rico, including Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. And New Zealand courts are also looking to the case for guidance in developing their own jurisprudence.
• • •
schmidt This vividly illustrates how state charters serve as independent guardians of our right to expression. State constitutions and courts remain an important “double security” for ensuring the preservation of individual rights and freedoms in the federal system.
Henry Hsiao is an undergraduate student at Princeton University.
Recommended citation: Henry Hsiao, Landmark lawsuit that expanded speech rights over private propertySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (November 25, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/landmark-case-extended-speech-rights-private-property
