Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley

Last updated
Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 19, 1972
Decided June 26, 1972
Full case namePolice Department of the City of Chicago et al. v. Mosley.
Citations408 U.S. 92 ( more )
92 S. Ct. 2286; 33 L. Ed. 2d 212
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior432 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir. 1970); cert. granted, 404 U.S. 821(1971).
Holding
A city ordinance prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of a school, unless the school is undergoing a labor dispute, is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Powell
ConcurrenceBlackmun (without a written opinion), joined by Rehnquist
ConcurrenceBurger

Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case which concerned freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Oral argument for this case was consolidated with Grayned v. City of Rockford , but separate opinions were issued for each. Earl Mosley had protested employment discrimination by carrying a sign on the sidewalk in front of a Chicago high school, until the city of Chicago made it illegal to do so. Although Chicago believed that its ordinance was a time, place, or manner restriction, and therefore was a constitutional law, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a content-based restriction, because it treated labor-related protests differently from other protests. Since the ordinance did not meet the higher standards for content-based restrictions, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Contents

Background

Factual background

Over the course of seven months in 1967 and 1968, Earl Mosley had frequently picketed the Jones Commercial High School in Chicago with a sign that read: "Jones High School practices black discrimination. Jones High School has a black quota." [1] [2] As the city of Chicago would admit during litigation, Mosley's protests were "always peaceful, orderly, and quiet." [1] Still, effective April 5, 1968, Chicago amended its disorderly conduct ordinance in a way that outlawed his protests:

"A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:

.....

"(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute . . . ." Municipal Code, c. 193-1 (i).

— Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92-93 (1972), quoting the ordinance in question

When he saw a notice of the ordinance in a newspaper, Mosley called the police department, who advised him that he'd be arrested if he kept up his protest. [2] Mosley did stop protesting, but he filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois to overturn the ordinance. [2]

Proceedings in lower courts

The trial court sided with the city and issued a directed verdict upholding the ordinance, reasoning that it met the standards for a time, place, or manner restriction. [2] On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit ruled that it was overbroad. [2] Because the law could apply to circumstances where the city had not demonstrated any real reason to prohibit all peaceful protests (such as Mr. Mosley's), it prohibited speech more broadly than the constitution would allow:

In the subject case where the sole question is right of access to a public way for the purpose of expression of views and where there is no danger of interference with a valid state interest, plaintiff's First Amendment right to picket may not be constitutionally denied.

— Mosley v. Chicago Police Dept., 432 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir. 1970) (Judge John Simpson Hastings, writing for the court)

Chicago appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consolidation with Grayned v. City of Rockford

The same year, the U.S. Supreme Court also accepted an appeal from the Illinois Supreme Court in Grayned v. City of Rockford . In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court had upheld two of Rockford's ordinances; one was an anti-noise ordinance, and the other an anti-picketing ordinance that was identical to Chicago's ordinance.

Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the ordinance was unconstitutional. [1] Six justices supported the majority opinion, two concurred without writing or joining an opinion, and Chief Justice Burger wrote a separate concurrence.

Majority opinion

In an opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court ruled that the Chicago's ordinance prohibiting non-labor pickets on school property violated the First Amendment's Freedom to Protest, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection under the law. [1] While some of oral argument focused on whether different possible variations on the ordinance–such as whether a radius smaller than 150 feet would be acceptable, or whether the ordinance could affect just school property as opposed to "a public way" outside [3] –the opinion ultimately focused on the fact that labor disputes were treated differently from any other type of speech. That meant the Court had to consider whether it violated the Equal Protection clause, and it found that it did:

The Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes affecting First Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their legitimate objectives. Chicago may not vindicate its interest in preventing disruption by the wholesale exclusion of picketing on all but one preferred subject. Given what Chicago tolerates from labor picketing, the excesses of some nonlabor picketing may not be controlled by a broad ordinance prohibiting both peaceful and violent picketing.

— Chicago Polic Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) (Justice Marshall, writing for the court)

This opinion contains what would become an often-quoted statement about the First Amendment's strong protection for free speech: [4]

But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

— Chicago Polic Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. at 95 (1972) (Justice Marshall, writing for the majority)

Burger's concurrence

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote a short concurrence in order to state that, although he agreed with the majority on this case's outcome, "the First Amendment does not literally mean that we 'are guaranteed the right to express any thought...'" [1]

Related Research Articles

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), is a case of the United States Supreme Court that unanimously struck down St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and reversed the conviction of a teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family since the ordinance was held to violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is restricted by time, place and manner— though otherwise strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional.

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the court recognized that O'Brien's conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end.

Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of local governments to charge fees for the use of public places for private activities. By a 5–4 vote, the court ruled that an ordinance allowing the local government to set varying fees for different events violated the First Amendment due to the lack of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards" governing the amount of the fee.

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), is a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that a state government cannot employ "breach of the peace" statutes against protesters engaging in peaceable demonstrations that may potentially incite violence.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech that "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Here, the Court held that government may require organizers of any parade or procession on public streets to have a license and pay a fee.

Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a municipal ordinance which was used to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students.

City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.

Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a local city ordinance that made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and “annoy” any passersby was unconstitutionally vague. Dennis Coates participated in a protest along with four other unnamed students, all of whom were convicted of violating the city ordinance. Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. However, this conviction was overturned in the divided United States Supreme Court decision. The Court found that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment freedom of assembly.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral.

Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned the disorderly conduct charges against Dick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech under the First Amendment. A law passed by the state of Illinois had banned picketing in front of residences, but it had made an exception for labor disputes. A group of activists challenged the law after being convicted for protesting in front of the home of the mayor of Chicago regarding a lack of racial integration. The Court found that the law's distinction–based on the subject matter of a protest–was unjustified and unconstitutional.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Mosley v. Chicago Police Dept., 432 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir. 1970)
  3. ↑ "Oral Argument for Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley". Oyez . Retrieved July 16, 2022.
  4. ↑ Stephan, Paul B. III (February 1982). "The First Amendment and Content Discrimination". Virginia Law Review . 68 (2): 203–251 – via JSTOR.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.