310 U.S. 106 (1940), 667, Carlson v. California
| Citation | 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 |
| Party Name | Carlson v. California |
| Case Date | April 22, 1940 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Page 106
Argued February 29, March 1, 1940
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
A municipal ordinance making it unlawful for any person to carry or display any sign, banner or badge in the vicinity of any place of business for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from buying or working there, or for any person to "loiter" or "picket" in the vicinity of any place of business for such purpose held unconstitutional upon the authority of Thornhill v. Alabama, ante, p. 88.
Reversed.
Page 107
Appeal from the affirmance of a conviction and sentence under an anti-picketing ordinance.
Page 109
MURPHY, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether regulations embodied in a municipal ordinance abridge the freedom of speech or of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment.1
Section 2 of an ordinance of Shasta County, California, provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, highway, sidewalk, alley or other public place in the County of Shasta, California, to loiter in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to picket in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to carry, show or display any banner, transparency, badge or sign in front of, or in the vicinity of, any works, or factory, or any place of business or employment, for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from entering any such works, or factory, or place of business, or employment, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from purchasing or using any goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles, manufactured, made or kept for sale therein, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from doing or performing any service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment, or for the purpose of intimidating, threatening or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person who is performing, seeking or obtaining service or labor in any such works, factory, place of business or employment.2
Page 110
Appellant was one of a group of twenty-nine men engaged in "picketing" on U.S. Highway 99 in front of the Delta Tunnel Project in Shasta County.
The picketing consisted of walking (on the edge of the [60 S.Ct. 748] highway nearest the project) a distance of 50 to 100 feet in a general northerly direction, then turning around and retracing steps and continuing as before . . . ; all of the walking in connection with the picketing . . . was done off the paved portion of the highway and on the graveled portion of the right-of-way -- that is, on public property.
Some of the pickets carried signs, similar to those described in the margin,3 in such a manner that workers on the project and persons going along the highway in either direction could read them. The sign carried by appellant bore the legend: "This job is unfair to CIO." These activities occurred between the hours of 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. During this period, vehicles and persons passed freely without any molestation or interference through the picket line from the highway to the project and from the project to the highway, and the traffic of persons and automobiles along the highway was not obstructed. Appellant did not threaten or intimidate or coerce anyone, did not make any loud noises at any time, and was peaceful and orderly in his demeanor. The
Page 111
pickets committed no acts of violence, and there was no breach of the peace.
The County officers arrested appellant and charged that he did
loiter, picket, and display signs and banners in a public place and in and upon a public highway in front of, and in the vicinity of the Delta Tunnel Project . . . for the purpose of inducing and influencing persons to refrain from doing and performing services and labor
at the project in violation of the ordinance. The Justice's Court of Township Number Nine found him "guilty of violating the Shasta County Anti-Picketing Law," rendered judgment accordingly, and imposed sentence. The Superior Court of Shasta County affirmed the judgment. That court upheld the ordinance, over appellant's claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The thorny path to Thornhill: the origins at equity of the free speech overbreadth doctrine.
...1. (178.) 3 Fine, supra note 147, at 170. The Thornhill case was argued on the same day as another picketing case, Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106 (1940). 3 Fine, supra note 147, at 170. (179.) Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 91 (1940) (quoting Ala. Code [sections] 3448 (1923)). The ......