# Cameron v. Johnson (390 U.S. 611)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 611
Cameron et al. v. Johnson, Governor of Mississippi, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
No. 699. Argued: March 5-6, 1968 --- Decided: April 22, 1968
Appellants, to protest racial voting discrimination and encourage Negro registration, picketed the Forrest County, Mississippi, voting registration office in the county courthouse each weekday from January 23 to May 18, 1964, walking in a "march route" set off by the sheriff with barricades to facilitate access to the courthouse. On April 8 the legislature enacted the Mississippi Anti-Picketing Law, which, as amended, prohibits "picketing... in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any county... courthouses...." On April 9 the sheriff read the new law to the pickets, ordered them to disperse, and removed the barricades. When the pickets the next morning resumed marching along the now unmarked route they were arrested for violating the Anti-Picketing statute. Other arrests were made that afternoon, on April 11, and on May 18. On April 13 appellants brought this action seeking a judgment declaring that the Anti-Picketing Law is an invalid regulation of expression because of overbreadth and vagueness and an injunction against its enforcement in the prosecutions against them or otherwise, contending that the prosecutions were solely to discourage their freedom of expression. Following initial dismissal of the complaint and this Court's remand (381 U.S. 741) for reconsideration in the light of the intervening decision in Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, an evidentiary hearing was held and the three-judge District Court again dismissed the complaint, holding that the statute was not void on its face and that appellants had failed to show sufficient irreparable injury to warrant injunctive relief.
Held:
    1. The Mississippi Anti-Picketing Law is a valid regulatory statute; it is clear and precise and is not overly broad since it does not prohibit picketing unless it obstructs or unreasonably interferes with ingress or egress to or from the courthouse. Pp. 615-617.
    2. This Court's independent examination of the record does not disclose that the officials acted in bad faith to harass appellants' exercise of the right to free expression; that the statute was adopted to halt appellants' picketing; or that the State had no expectation of securing valid convictions. This is therefore not a case where a federal equity court "by withdrawing the determination of guilt from state courts could rightly afford [appellants] any protection which they could not secure by prompt trial and appeal pursued to this Court." Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 164. Dombrowski, supra, distinguished. Pp. 617-622.
262 F. Supp. 873, affirmed.
Benjamin E. Smith and Arthur Kinoy argued the cause for appellants. With them on the brief were William M. Kunstler, Morton Stavis and Bruce C. Waltzer.
Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General, and William A. Allain, Assistant Attorney General.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse