Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala, 42

Citation22 L.Ed.2d 162,394 U.S. 147,89 S.Ct. 935
Decision Date10 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 42,42
PartiesFred L. SHUTTLESWORTH, Petitioner, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALA
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioner.

Earl McBee, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner stands convicted for violating an ordinance of Birmingham, Alabama, making it an offense to participate in any 'parade or procession or other public demonstration' without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. The question before us is whether that conviction can be squared with the Constitution of the United States.

On the afternoon of April 12, Good Friday, 1963, 52 people, all Negroes, were led out of a Birmingham church by three Negro ministers, one of whom was the petitioner, Fred L. Shuttlesworth. They walked in orderly fashion, two abreast for the most part, for four blocks. The purpose of their march was to protest the alleged denial of civil rights to Negroes in the city of Birmingham. The marchers stayed on the sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere with other pedestrians. No automobiles were obstructed, nor were traffic signals disobeyed. The petitioner was with the group for at least part of this time, walking alongside the others, and once moving from the front to the rear. As the marchers moved along, a crowd of spectators fell in behind them at a distance. The spectators at some points spilled out into the street, but the street was not blocked and vehicles were not obstructed.

At the end of four blocks the marchers were stopped by the Birmingham police, and were arrested for violating § 1159 of the General Code of Birmingham. That ordinance reads as follows:

'It shall be unlawful to organize or hold, or to assist in organizing or holding, or to take part or participate in, any parade or procession or other public demonstration on the streets or other public ways of the city, unless a permit therefore has been secured from the commission.

'To secure such permit, written application shall be made to the commission, setting forth the probable number of persons, vehicles and animals which will be engaged in such parade, procession or other public demonstration, the purpose of which it is to be held or had, and the streets or other public ways over, along or in which it is desired to have or hold such parade, procession or other public demonstration. The commission shall grant a written permit for such parade, procession or other public demonstration, prescribing the streets or other public ways which may be used therefor, unless in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused. It shall be unlawful to use for such purposes any other streets or public ways than those set out in said permit.

'The two preceding paragraphs, however, shall not apply to funeral processions.'

The petitioner was convicted for violation of § 1159 and was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment at hard labor and an additional 48 days at hard labor in default of payment of a $75 fine and $24 costs. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient 'to show a procession which would require, under the terms of § 1159, the getting of a permit,' that the ord nance had been applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it was unconstitutional in imposing an 'invidious prior restraint' without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits. 43 Ala.App. 68, 95, 83, 180 So.2d 114, 139, 127. The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, giving the language of § 1159 an extraordinarily narrow construction, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction. 281 Ala. 542, 206 So.2d 348. We granted certiorari to consider the petitioner's constitutional claims, 390 U.S. 1023, 88 S.Ct. 1417, 20 L.Ed.2d 280.

There can be no doubt that the Birmingham ordinance, as it was written, conferred upon the City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any 'parade,' 'procession,'1 or 'demonstration' on the city's streets or public ways. For in deciding whether or not to withhold a permit, the members of the Commission were to be guided only by their own ideas of 'public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience.' This ordinance as it was written, therefore, fell squarely within the ambit of the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional.2 'It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.' Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322, 78 S.Ct. 277, 282, 2 L.Ed.2d 302. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.3 'The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.' Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602, 62 S.Ct. 1231, 1242, 86 L.Ed. 1691 (Stone, C.J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. 1290.

It is argued, however, that what was involved here was not 'pure speech,' but the use of public streets and sidewalks, over which a municipality must rightfully exercise a great deal of control in the interest of traffic regulation and public safety. That, of course, is true. We have emphasized before this that 'the First and Fourteenth Amendments (do not) afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.' Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555, 85 S.Ct. 453, 464, 13 L.Ed.2d 471. 'Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.' Id., at 554—555, 85 S.Ct., at 464.

But our decisions have also made clear that picketing and parading may nonetheless constitute methods of expression, entitled to First Amendment protection. Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093. 'Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.' Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515—516, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Black).

Accordingly, 'although (a) this Court has recognized that a statute may be enacted which prevents serious interference with normal usage of streets and parks, * * * we have consistently condemned licensing systems which vest in an administrative official discretion to grant or withhold a permit upon broad criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places.' Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293—294, 71 S.Ct. 312, 315, 95 L.Ed. 280. See also Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 92 L.Ed. 1574; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 328, 95 L.Ed. 267, 280. Even when the use of its public streets and sidewalks is involved, therefore, a municipality may not empower its licensing officials to roam essentially at will, dispensing or withholding permission to speak, assemble, picket, or parade according to their own opinions regarding the potential effect of the activity in question on the 'welfare,' 'decency,' or 'morals' of the community.

Understandably, under these settled principles, the Alabama Court of Appeals was unable to reach any conclusion other than that § 1159 was unconstitutional. The terms of the Birmingham ordinance clearly gave the City Commission extensive authority to issue or refuse to issue parade permits on the basis of broad criteria entirely unrelated to legitimate municipal regulation of the public streets and sidewalks.

It is said, however, that no matter how constitutionally invalid the Birmingham ordinance may have been as it was written, nonetheless the authoritative construction that has now been given it by the Supreme Court of Alabama has so modified and narrowed its terms as to render it constitutionally cceptable. It is true that in affirming the petitioner's conviction in the present case, the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance. The court stated that when § 1159 provided that the City Commission could withhold a permit whenever 'in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1041 cases
  • Mandel v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., Alameda County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1969
    ...evaluating the conduct of the suspect, and the former's conception of what is sinister or wrongful. In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1968) 394 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 the court struck down a conviction under a city ordinance which made it an offense to participate in a parade ......
  • Harman v. City of Santa Cruz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 5, 2017
    ...restraint must contain "narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969). Absent such standards, a licensing system will generally be invalided as an unconstitutional prior restra......
  • Castro v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 17, 1970
    ...of First Amendment rights. (Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 112, 89 S.Ct. 946, 22 L.Ed.2d 134; Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697.) 8 This does not, of course, clothe petitio......
  • U. C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 1984
    ...945; see also City of Indio v. Arroyo (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 151, 159-160, 191 Cal.Rptr. 565; Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969) 394 U.S. 147, 150-151, 89 S.Ct. 935, 938, 22 L.Ed.2d 162.) This is enough to establish a violation of the principle of equal protection, since unfettered "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Do Not Knock? Lovell to Watchtower and Back Again
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-3, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010
    ...Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 (1981) (citations omitted). 213 See, e.g. , Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150–51 (1969) (“[A] law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, ......
  • Protective orders, property interests and prior restraints: can the courts prevent media nonparties from publishing court-protected discovery materials?
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 No. 6, June 1996
    • June 1, 1996
    ...cripple trial courts' ability effectively to manage the pretrial exchange of discovery information." (quoting Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969))). (292) See In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 104 F.R.D. 559, 576 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (denying a challenge by a nonparty br......
  • THE CHRONIC EFFECT OF "KILL THE INDIAN SAVE THE MAN": AN ANALYSIS OF DREAMING BEAR V. FLEMING.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 66 No. 2, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...U.S. 539, 558 (1976). (161.) Southeastern Promotions. Ltd., 420 U.S. at 553. (162.) Id. (citing Shuttlcsworth v. City of Birmingham. Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 150-51 (163.) See generally Nat'l Socialist Party v. Vill. of Skokic, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (holding that it was improper to leave an injunct......
  • International response to Dolly: will scientific freedom get sheared?
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 13 No. 1, March 1998
    • March 22, 1998
    ...379 U.S. 503 (1965) and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). (288) See id. (289) See id., at 39 (citing Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969). The Court held that laws can not ban parades or pickets, but they can regulate them); citing Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965). The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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