Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 18, 1968 Decided March 10, 1969 |
|
| Full case name | Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham |
| Citations | 394 U.S. 147 (more)
89 S. Ct. 935; 22 L. Ed. 2d 162
|
| Holding | |
| The Court held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1159 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance prohibited only standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1159 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1969. The Court ruled against a city rule in Birmingham, Alabama. This rule made it illegal for people to hold parades or marches on city streets without getting a special permit first. The Supreme Court decided that this rule was unconstitutional.
Contents
Why This Case Happened
Reverend Shuttlesworth's March
The case started with Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. He was an African American minister and a leader in the civil rights movement. In 1963, he led a peaceful march with 52 other African Americans in Birmingham, Alabama.
Birmingham's Parade Rule
After the march, Reverend Shuttlesworth was arrested. He was found guilty of breaking a city rule called Section 1159. This rule said that you needed a permit from the City Commission to have a parade or procession on public streets.
The rule also let the Commission say "no" to a permit if they thought it would affect "public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience." Reverend Shuttlesworth had been told by a city official that his group would never be allowed to protest in Birmingham.
Court Decisions Before the Supreme Court
At first, a court in Alabama (the Alabama Court of Appeals) said that the city's rule was unconstitutional. They said it gave the city too much power to stop people from speaking freely. They also noted that the rule seemed to be used unfairly.
However, the highest court in Alabama (the Alabama Supreme Court) later disagreed. In 1967, they said the rule was actually about controlling traffic, not stopping protests. They believed the city didn't have unlimited power to deny permits. Because of this, they upheld Reverend Shuttlesworth's conviction.
Reverend Shuttlesworth then took his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. He was helped by a famous civil rights lawyer named James Nabrit III.
The Supreme Court's Decision
What the Court Said
Justice Potter Stewart wrote the main opinion for the Supreme Court. The Court decided that the city's rule, as it was actually written, was unconstitutional. This meant it went against the U.S. Constitution.
The Court also looked at how the Alabama Supreme Court had tried to explain the rule. The Alabama court said the rule only stopped people from standing or blocking traffic. But the U.S. Supreme Court found it wasn't clear if this new, simpler meaning was actually used when Reverend Shuttlesworth was denied his permit.
Why Shuttlesworth Won
The Supreme Court decided to overturn Reverend Shuttlesworth's conviction. Even though the Alabama Supreme Court tried to fix the rule, the U.S. Supreme Court saw a problem. The permit was denied not to help with traffic, but to stop people from sharing their ideas. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech and assembly, which includes peaceful protests.
