The Right to Exclude and Constitutional Freedoms under Property Law
1. Introduction to the Right to Exclude
In property law, "the right to exclude" is often considered the most fundamental right of a property owner. This right essentially allows a property owner to deny others access to their property. It has been famously referred to by legal scholars as the “hallmark of ownership.”
However, this right is not absolute. There are constitutional freedoms — like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly — which can sometimes come into tension with the right to exclude, particularly when private property becomes a site for public interaction (e.g., shopping centers, company towns).
2. The Right to Exclude: Core Principles
Rooted in common law tradition.
Enforced through trespass laws: anyone entering land without permission can be sued or prosecuted.
Expresses autonomy, control, and privacy of the property owner.
Quote by Justice Brandeis:
"The most essential stick in the bundle of rights is the right to exclude others."
(From his dissent in International News Service v. Associated Press, though indirectly related)
3. Constitutional Freedoms in Tension
Certain constitutional rights, particularly First Amendment rights in the U.S. context, can conflict with a private property owner's right to exclude. The courts have had to balance:
Individual liberties (e.g., freedom of speech or religion)
Private property interests
The legal complexity arises when private property functions like public space, e.g., privately owned shopping malls.
4. Landmark Case Law
(A) State v. Shack (1971) – New Jersey Supreme Court
Facts:
Two government workers entered private farmland to provide aid and legal advice to migrant farm workers living there.
The landowner sought to exclude them under trespass law.
Holding:
The court held that the property rights of the owner did not include the right to bar government workers from aiding the workers.
Key Principle:
Property rights are not absolute and cannot be used to injure others or deny them basic services and rights.
The court said, “Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises.”
(B) Marsh v. Alabama (1946) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
A woman was arrested for distributing religious literature on a sidewalk in a company-owned town.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the private ownership of the town could not override First Amendment rights.
Even though the property was privately owned, it functioned like a public municipality.
Key Principle:
When private property is opened up for public use, the public cannot be stripped of constitutional protections.
(C) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
High school students were barred from collecting petition signatures in a privately owned shopping center in California.
Holding:
The Court upheld California’s state constitution, which allowed limited free speech rights in privately owned shopping centers.
Key Principle:
States may expand individual freedoms beyond the U.S. Constitution under their own laws.
The property owner’s right to exclude was limited by state constitutional rights allowing free speech in quasi-public spaces.
(D) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Anti-Vietnam War activists were prevented from distributing leaflets inside a private shopping mall.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the property owner, holding that they could exclude protestors.
Key Principle:
Unlike in Marsh, the shopping mall did not replace traditional public spaces like a town.
The First Amendment does not guarantee access to private property for free speech purposes.
5. Synthesis: Balancing Rights
| Property Owner's Right to Exclude | Individual's Constitutional Freedoms |
|---|---|
| Foundational to property rights | Foundational to democratic society |
| Enforced through trespass laws | Enforced through constitutional interpretation |
| Can be limited in public-interest settings | May be restricted on purely private property |
6. Comparative Jurisdictions (Briefly)
UK: There is no general constitutional right to free speech on private land. The right to exclude is stronger.
India: The balance is influenced by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution (freedom of expression and right to life), but courts generally protect the right to exclude unless there's significant public interest.
7. Conclusion
The right to exclude is central to property ownership, but it is not unqualified. Courts in the U.S. and elsewhere have shown a willingness to limit this right in favor of constitutional freedoms, especially when private property functions like a public forum.
However, where the property is clearly private and not open to the public, courts have largely upheld the owner's right to exclude, even when this curtails the exercise of certain individual rights.
Key Takeaway:
The right to exclude remains a vital component of property law, but it must often yield to higher constitutional principles, especially when private spaces begin to mirror public forums in function and accessibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments