Carlson v. People of State of California
| Citation | 310 U.S. 106,84 L.Ed. 1104,60 S.Ct. 746 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 667,667 |
| Parties | CARLSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
See 310 U.S. 657, 60 S.Ct. 1072, 84 L.Ed.
Messrs. Lee Pressman and Joseph Kovner, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Laurence W. Carr, of Redding, Cal., for appellee, pro bac vice by special leave of Court.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 107-108 intentionally omitted] 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, State of 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
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 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 gravelled 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 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 unconstitutionality, on the authority of a prior decision.4 The case comes here on appeal.5
Our decision in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. —-, decided this day, goes far toward settling the issues presented here. Under that decision, Section 2 of the ordinance in question is to be judged upon its face.6
Section 2 on its face declares it unlawful for any person to carry or display any sign or banner or badge in the vicinity of any place of business for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce any person to refrain from purchasing merchandise or performing services or labor. It likewise makes it unlawful for any person to loiter or picket in the vicinity of any place of business for a similar purpose. The terms 'loiter' and 'picket' are not defined either in the ordinance or in authoritative State decisions. Therefore, they must be judged as covering all the activities embraced by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulkey v. Reitman
...(Citations.)' (See also Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093; Carlson v. People of State of California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104; Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. The instant case, of course, relates directly ......
-
United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court
...for peaceful picketing. (See, e.g., Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093; Carlson v. California (1940) 310 U.S. 106; 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104; Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. (1968) 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603; ......
-
Pittsburg Unified School Dist. v. California School Employees Assn.
...Thus, on the authority of Thornhill v. Alabama, supra, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 and Carlson v. California (1940) 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104, the California Supreme Court long ago declared that "the right to picket peacefully and truthfully is one of organized ......
-
State ex rel. Lumber and Sawmill Workers v. Superior Court for Pierce County
... ... are the ... states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Northern ... California. The I. W. A. has jurisdiction of all logging, ... sawmill, plywood and box plant operations ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to ... petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' ... State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 ... S.Ct. 736, 738, 84 L.Ed. 1093; Carlson v. People of State ... of California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed ... 1104; ... ...
-
The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
...made unlawful by state law. Itdoes not matter whether the state ruleof law is defined by the legislators or71 Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106, 112(1940).72 A. F. of L. v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321(1941) ; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos,320 U. S. 293 (1943).73 Bakery & Pastry Drivers a......
-
Technologies of protest: insurgent social movements and the First Amendment in the era of the Internet.
...dissent in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). Justice Kennedy quoted from Lovell, Schneider, Thornhill, and Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106 (1940), to support his contention that the court has a long history of supporting "peaceful and vital" methods of protest, such as handing out ......
-
The Fiction of the First Freedom
...v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 (1948). 4 Snyder v. Milwaukee, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106 (1940); Milk Wagon Drivers Union of America v. Meadowmoor Dairies,312 U.S. 287 (1941); American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321 (......
-
Picketing: Its Use and Abuse
...his- U. S. 219 (1941). See also Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Carlson v. tory of labor relations. The farseeing California, 310 U. S. 106 (1940); and labor leaders have recognized its menace son Products Co., 70 NLRB No. 3 (1946). ann.sagepub.com Downloaded from at SAGE PUBLI......