Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 19, 1972 Decided June 26, 1972 |
|
| Full case name | Police Department of the City of Chicago et al. v. Mosley. |
| Citations | 408 U.S. 92 (more)
92 S. Ct. 2286; 33 L. Ed. 2d 212
|
| Prior history | 432 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir. 1970); cert. granted, 404 U.S. 821 (1971). |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| 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 | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Powell |
| Concurrence | Blackmun (without a written opinion), joined by Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Burger |
Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972), was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was all about freedom of speech and the First Amendment. The case looked at whether a city could stop people from protesting in certain ways. The Court decided that a Chicago law stopping protests near schools was unfair because it treated different types of protests differently. This made the law unconstitutional, meaning it went against the U.S. Constitution.
Contents
Why This Case Matters: Free Speech
The Story of Earl Mosley's Protest
For several months in 1967 and 1968, a man named Earl Mosley protested peacefully. He stood outside Jones Commercial High School in Chicago. His sign said the school was unfair to Black people. He believed the school had a "black quota" for hiring. The city of Chicago agreed that his protests were always calm and orderly.
Chicago's New Law Against Protests
On April 5, 1968, Chicago changed its laws. A new rule made it illegal to protest near schools. The law said:
"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).
This new rule meant Mosley could be arrested if he kept protesting. He stopped protesting but decided to fight the law in court.
The Case Goes to Court
Mosley filed a lawsuit in a federal court. He wanted the new Chicago law to be overturned. The first court agreed with the city. It said the law was a "time, place, or manner" restriction. This means a law can limit when, where, or how you speak, but not what you say.
However, Mosley appealed to a higher court, the Seventh Circuit. This court disagreed with the first one. It said the law was too broad. It stopped too much peaceful speech. The court explained that Mosley's right to protest could not be denied. This was because his protest was peaceful and did not cause any real problems.
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.
The city of Chicago then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Court's Unanimous Ruling
The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit. All nine justices believed the Chicago law was unconstitutional. This means it went against the U.S. Constitution. Six justices wrote the main opinion. Two others agreed without writing their own reasons. Chief Justice Burger wrote a short separate opinion.
Why the Law Was Unconstitutional
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the main opinion for the Court. The Court found that Chicago's law was unfair because it treated different types of protests differently. The law allowed protests about labor disputes (like workers' rights) near schools. But it banned all other kinds of protests, like Mosley's.
The Court said this violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause. This clause means that laws must treat everyone equally. If a law affects important rights like free speech, it must be very specific. It cannot stop speech just because of its message.
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.
Justice Marshall wrote a famous line in this opinion:
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.
This means the government cannot stop you from speaking just because it doesn't like what you are saying.
Chief Justice Burger's View
Chief Justice Warren Burger agreed with the outcome. He wrote a short separate opinion. He wanted to make it clear that the First Amendment does not mean people can say absolutely anything. But in this case, the Chicago law was still wrong.
