National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
| Decision Date | 14 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1786,76-1786 |
| Citation | National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) |
| Parties | NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA et al. v. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On April 29, 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an injunction against petitioners. The injunction prohibited them from performing any of the following actions within the village of Skokie, Ill.: "(m)arching, walking or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America; (m)arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; (d)istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry or hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion." The Illinois Appellate Court denied an application for stay pending appeal. Applicants then filed a petition for a stay in the Illinois Supreme Court, together with a request for a direct expedited appeal to that court. The Illinois Supreme Court denied both the stay and leave for an expedited appeal. Applicants then filed an application for a stay with Mr. Justice Stevens, as Circuit Justice, who referred the matter to the Court.
(1, 2) Treating the application as a petition for certiorari from the order of the Illinois Supreme Court, we grant certiorari and reverse the Illinois Supreme Court's denial of a stay. That order is a final judgment for purposes of our jurisdiction, since it involved a right "separable from, and collateral to" the merits, Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 476-487, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1036-1042, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). It finally determined the merits of petitioners' claim that the outstanding injunction will deprive them of rights protected by the First Amendment during the period of appellate review which, in the normal course, may take a year or more to complete. If a State seeks to impose a restraint of this kind, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965), including immediate appellate review, see Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1319, 1327, 96 S.Ct. 237, 251, 46 L.Ed.2d 199, 237 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers). Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay. The order of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted a denial of that right.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice WHITE would deny the stay.
The Court treats an application filed here to stay a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County as a petition for certiorari to review the refusal of the Supreme Court of Illinois to stay the injunction. It summarily reverses this refusal of a stay. I simply do not see how the refusal of the Supreme Court of Illinois to stay an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Young
...defendant emphasizes, protects even deeply offensive and hateful beliefs. (See, e.g., National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977) 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (per curiam); see also, e.g., Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443, 458, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 [" ‘If there is ......
-
Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't
...survives constitutional scrutiny).100 Johnson , 491 U.S. at 420, 109 S.Ct. 2533.101 Cf. National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie , 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) (per curiam).102 Spence , 418 U.S. at 406, 408, 94 S.Ct. 2727 (per curiam).103 Schacht v. United States , ......
-
Elec. Frontier Found. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty Ltd., Case No. 17–cv–02053–JST
...injunction prohibiting a march was reviewable as a collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Nat'l Socialist Party of Am. v. Vill. of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977). Accordingly, the injunction is a qualifying order under the SPEECH Act.As to the merits of th......
-
State v. Hackett
...(flag desecration is protected speech); State v. Lessin , 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 620 N.E.2d 72 (1993) ; Natl. Socialist Party of Am. v. Skokie , 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) (staying a preliminary injunction of a proposed march by the National Socialist Party, a group promot......
-
Rewriting Near v. Minnesota: Creating a Complete Definition of Prior Restraint - Michael I. Meyerson
...Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 180 (1968). 111. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 44 (1977). 112. Id. 113. Near, 283 U.S. at 716. 114. See Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. P......
-
Public Universities and the First Amendment: Controversial Speakers, Protests, and Free Speech Policies
...Bible & Tract Soc’y v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 167 (2002). 133 See generally Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Vill. of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). 134 See id. 135 See generally Campus Free Speech Act , supra note 14, § 4. 136 Id. § 4(A). 137 See id. 138 See, e.g. , United States......
-
A Constitution of collaboration: protecting fundamental values with second-look rules of interbranch dialogue.
...v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S. 308 (1980) (obscene film review by court rather than agency censor); National Socialist Party of Am. v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (per curiam) (parade permit); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (refusal of permission to stage ......
-
COSTS AND CHALLENGES OF THE HOSTILE AUDIENCE.
...v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978). (19) Smith v. Collin, 439 U.S. 916 (1978) (denying certiorari); Nat'l Socialist Party of Am. v. Vill. of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (per curiam) (staying injunction against the (20) See Maryland v. Balt. Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 917-20 (1950) ......