Flower v. United States 8212 1180

Decision Date12 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71,71
Citation32 L.Ed.2d 653,407 U.S. 197,92 S.Ct. 1842
PartiesJohn Thomas FLOWER v. UNITED STATES. —1180
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Petition John Thomas Flower, a regional 'Peace Education Secretary' of the American Friends Service Committee and a civilian, was arrested by military police while quietly distributing leaflets on New Braunfels Avenue at a point within the limits of Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. In an ensuing prosecution before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382 ('Whoever reenters or is found (within a military post) after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof—Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both'), it was established that petitioner had previously been barred from the post by order of the deputy commander because of alleged participation in an attempt to distribute 'unauthorized' leaflets. The District Court found that § 1382 'is a valid law' and was validly applied. It sentenced petitioner to six months in prison. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 452 F.2d 80 (CA5 1972).

We reverse. Whatever power the authorities may have to restrict general access to a military facility, see Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers etc. v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961), here the fort commander chose not to exclude the public from the street where petitioner was arrested. As Judge Simpson, dissenting, noted below:

'There is no sentry post or guard at either entrance or anywhere along the route. Traffic flows through the post on this and other streets 24 hours a day. A traffic count conducted on New Braunfels Avenue on January 22, 1968, by the Director of Transportation of the city of San Antonio, shows a daily (24-hour) vehicular count of 15,110 south of Grayson Street (the place where the street enters the post boundary) and 17,740 vehicles daily north of that point. The street is an important traffic artery used freely by buses, taxi cabs and other public transportation facilities as well as by private vehicles, and its sidewalks are used extensively at all hours of the day by civilians as well as by military personnel. Fort Sam Houston was an open post; the street, New Braunfels Avenue, was a completely open street.' 452 F.2d, at 90.

Under such circumstances the military has abandoned any claim that it has special interests in who walks, talks, or distributes leaflets on the avenue. The base commandant can no more order petitioner off this public street because he was distributing leaflets than could the city police order any leafleteer off any public street. Cf. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 s.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938), Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). '(S)treets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion,' 308 U.S., at 163, 60 S.Ct. at 151. '(O)ne who is rightfully on a street which the state has left open to the public carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion.' Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 416, 63 S.Ct. 669, 672, 87 L.Ed. 869 (1943).

The First Amendment protects petitioner from the application of § 1382 under conditions like those of this case. Accordingly, without need to set the matter for further argument, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the conviction.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice BLACKMUN dissents, for he would grant the petition for certiorari and hear argument on the merits.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

The result, if not the reasoning, of the Court's impressionistic summary reversal of the Court of Appeals in this case is clear: without benefit of briefs or oral argument the Court declares unconstitutional this application of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, a statute enacted to give commanders of military posts authority thought necessary by Congress to exclude civilians from the post area after proper notice.

Because the post commander of Fort Sam Houston may have permitted civilian vehicular and pedestrian traffic on New Braunfels Avenue within the limits of Fort Sam Houston,* the Court holds that he has 'aban- doned' any claim of special interest in who walks, talks, or distributes leaflets on the avenue. Obviously the Court cannot be referring to the subjective intent of the base commander, since he gave petitioner due notice of his debarment from the base, and the bringing of this prosecution evinces a rather strong interest on the part of the commander in petitioner's 'leafleting' activities. If the Court means to say that once any portion of a military base is opened up to unregulated vehicular traffic it automatically follows that such portion of the base acquires the status of a public square in a city or town, the mere statement of that proposition—which is all that is contained in the Court's opinion is not self-demonstrating. Since the Court does not hold, and it does not appear on this record that it could hold, that petitioner Flower was treated differently from any other 'leafleteers,' the Court's holding does not deal with any possible denial of equal protection. The case thus concerns only the First Amendment claim of leafleteers to go anywhere on a military base to which civilian vehicles and pedestrians are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • CCCO-Western Region v. Fellows
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 31, 1972
    ...in Laird v. Tatum, supra. THE MERITS Plaintiffs argue for their relief in light of the recently decided Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, 92 S.Ct. 1842, 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1972), which reversed a conviction under § 1382 where the circumstances were quite similar to those here. In Flower, ......
  • Butler v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • November 8, 1973
    ...688 (D.R.I. 1969). But see Burnett v. Tolson, 474 F.2d 877, 878-879 and footnote 4 (4th Cir. 1973). 16 See Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, 92 S.Ct. 1842, 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1972); Burnett v. Tolson, 17Griffin dealt with those portions of 42 U. S.C. § 1985(3) up to the second semi-colon,......
  • Brown v. Glines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1980
    ...on military reservations from which they can be excluded. Significantly, the previous decision in Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, 92 S.Ct. 1842, 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1972) (per curiam ), was distinguished on the ground that leafletting in Flower had taken place on a portion of Fort Sam Ho......
  • Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • January 18, 1995
    ...[is] applicable to U.S. conduct on a military base." 823 F.Supp. at 1040. The court cited Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, 198-99, 92 S.Ct. 1842, 1843-44, 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1972) (per curiam) for this proposition. From our reading of Flower we find it is clearly distinguishable. The mil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, 1971-1972
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 25-4, December 1972
    • December 1, 1972
    ...with violation of federal statutes governing mili-tary posts. He was convicted and appealed. In Flower v. United States (407 U.S. 197; 92 S. Ct. 1842) with a per curiam opinion the Court reversed the The holding was that the street in question was a completely open street with civiliantraff......
  • A Hard Look at the Military Magistrate Pretrial Confinement Hearing: Gerstein and Courtney Revisited
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 88, April 1980
    • April 1, 1980
    ...eases. Of aignifieanee, however, is the Caurt'a uillingneas ta Yeview the constitutional challenges at all. In Flower Y. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (l9l2),the Court found It to be infringement of B eiviiian's first amendment nghts to prohibit h m from distributing anti-war lealets on B pub......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT