# *Majestic Realty v. Salazar* The Supreme Court should overturn the outmoded doctrine that requires private property owners to provide platforms for other people’s speech. June 29, 2026 • Legal Briefs By [Thomas A. Berry](https://www.cato.org/people/thomas-berry), [Dan Greenberg](https://www.cato.org/people/dan-greenberg), and [Harrison Prestwich](https://www.cato.org/people/harrison-prestwich) [ Download PDF ](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-06/Majestic%20Realty%20v.%20Salazar_Final.pdf) Learn more about [Cato’s Amicus Briefs Program](/about/cato-amicus-program). Majestic Realty Co. and its partners own and operate two adjoining open-air shopping centers in Redlands, California. These shopping centers prohibit any soliciting, petitioning, polling for political causes, or distribution of pamphlets on their private property. Those who wish to engage in such expressive activity at the centers must obtain prior approval, but the policy is to deny all such requests – which, in effect, bans third-party speech there. Alex Salazar, a “men’s rights” activist, sought permission to distribute flyers on the centers’ private property. He was denied that permission. Eventually, he sued in California state court, asking for a preliminary injunction that would compel Majestic Realty Co. and its partners to give Salazar access to their property and serve as platforms for his speech. After the trial court denied the injunction, the California State Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the centers’ ban violated *PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins*. *PruneYard* held that a mall’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are not violated by compelled access to its private property. The California court was bound to apply this precedent, and Majestic Realty Co. appealed to the Supreme Court. The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief in support of their petition. Cato’s brief argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in *PruneYard* was wrong on the day it was decided. It conflicts with the Court’s contemporaneous First Amendment jurisprudence in *Wooley v. Maynard* and *Abood v. Detroit Board of Education*. In those cases, the Court was firm that compelled speech violated the First Amendment, even when the compelled speech would not be mistaken for the speaker’s own beliefs. And since 1980, *PruneYard*’s status as First Amendment aberration has only grown starker, with cases like *303 Creative*, *Moody*, and *Janus* reinforcing the right to be free from compelled speech. It is time for this mistaken doctrine to be removed from binding law. [![Majestic Realty v. Salazar_Final_pubcover](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/serial_cover_phone/public/2026-06/Majestic%20Realty%20v.%20Salazar_Final_pubcover.jpg?itok=y5FiU0as)](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-06/Majestic%20Realty%20v.%20Salazar_Final.pdf) ### Download This Legal Brief ##### *Majestic Realty v. Salazar* [ Download PDF ](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-06/Majestic%20Realty%20v.%20Salazar_Final.pdf) ##### About the Authors [![Thomas Berry](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/author_picture/public/2026-02/2025-10-16-Thomas%20Berry-sq_0.jpg?itok=SW7WagUw)](/people/thomas-berry) ##### [Thomas A. Berry](/people/thomas-berry) Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute [ ](https://x.com/Thomas_A_Berry) [ ](mailto:tberry@cato.org) [![Dan Greenberg cropped](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/author_picture/public/2025-03/Dan%20Greenberg%20cropped.png?itok=Ze7HzJaI)](/people/dan-greenberg) ##### [Dan Greenberg](/people/dan-greenberg) Senior Legal Fellow, Cato Institute [![Harrison Prestwich](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/author_picture/public/2025-12/Harrison%20Prestwich.jpg?itok=mv5uz9Uj)](/people/harrison-prestwich) ##### [Harrison Prestwich](/people/harrison-prestwich) Legal Associate, Cato Institute [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). [ Download PDF ](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-06/Majestic%20Realty%20v.%20Salazar_Final.pdf)