Document: 539 U.S. 113 VIRGINIAv.HICKS. No. 02-371. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 30, 2003. Decided June 16, The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), a political subdivision Virginia, owns operates Whitcomb Court, low-income housing development. In 1997, the City Council conveyed Court's streets to RRHA in an effort combat crime drug dealing by nonresidents. accordance with terms conveyance, enacted policy authorizing police serve notice on any person lacking "a legitimate business or social purpose" for being premises arrest trespassing who remains returns after having been so notified. gave respondent Hicks, nonresident, written barring him from Court. Subsequently, he trespassed there was arrested convicted. At trial, claimed that RRHA's was, among other things, unconstitutionally overbroad. Virginia Appeals vacated his conviction. affirming, found overbroad violation First Amendment because unwritten rule leafleting demonstrating require advance permission vested too much discretion manager. Held: trespass is not facially invalid under Amendment's overbreadth doctrine. Pp. 118-124. (a) Under doctrine, showing law punishes "substantial" amount protected free speech, "in relation statute's plainly sweep," Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615, suffices invalidate all enforcement "until unless limiting construction partial invalidation narrows it as remove seeming threat deterrence constitutionally expression," id., at 613. Only substantial supports such facial invalidation, since are significant costs blocking law's application unprotected conduct. 118-120. (b) This has jurisdiction review merits question here. Virginia's actual injury fact—the inability prosecute Hicks trespass—is sufficiently distinct palpable confer Article III standing. 120-121. (c) Even assuming invalidity "unwritten" leafleters demonstrators, shown prohibits speech its many applications. Both notice-barment "legitimate apply persons entering streets, just those seeking engage expression. Neither basis barment sanction (a prior trespass) nor purpose (preventing future trespasses) implicates Amendment. An challenge rarely succeeds against regulation specifically addressed conduct necessarily associated speech. Any applications violate can be remedied through as-applied litigation. 121-124. 264 Va. 48, 563 E. 2d 674, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous SOUTER, filed concurring opinion, which BREYER, joined, post, p. 124. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. 2 William H. Hurd, State Solicitor argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, Maureen Riley Matsen Thro, Deputy Solicitors, Christy A. McCormick Cameron O'Brion, Assistant Attorneys General. 3 General Dreeben States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Olson, Chertoff McCallum, James Feldman, Michael Jay Singer, Stephanie R. Marcus. 4 Steven D. Benjamin respondent. Amanda Frost, Brian Wolfman, Alan B. Morrison.* 5 JUSTICE SCALIA 6 issue presented this case whether Authority's 7 * A 8 (RRHA) development residents called Until 23, city owned within council decided, however, "privatize" these rampant Court—much committed conducted Ordinance 97-181-197, provided, part: 9 "`§ 1. That Carmine Street, Bethel Ambrose Deforrest 2100-2300 Block Sussex Street 2700-2800 Magnolia . hereby closed public use travel abandoned Richmond.'" App. Pet. Cert. 93-94. 10 then recorded deed (which Commonwealth Virginia). required "`give appearance street, particularly entrances, no longer they fact private streets.'" Id., 95. To end, posted red-and-white signs each apartment building—and every 100 feet along streets—of state: "`NO TRESPASSING[.] PRIVATE PROPERTY[.] YOU ARE NOW ENTERING PROPERTY AND STREETS OWNED BY RRHA. UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS WILL BE SUBJECT ARREST PROSECUTION. VEHICLES TOWED AT OWNERS EXPENSE.'" 5. also 11 "`to notice, either orally writing, property when resident, employee, cannot demonstrate premises. Such shall forbid returning property. Finally, authorizes Police Department officers person, duly notified, stays upon property.'" 98-99 (emphasis added). 12 Persons notified return subject prosecution Code Ann. § 18.2-119 (1996): 13 "If without authority goes lands, buildings another, portion area thereof, forbidden do so, owner, lessee, custodian lawfully charge thereof guilty Class misdemeanor." B 14 Respondent Kevin nonresident convicted two occasions once damaging there. Those convictions case. While property-damage pending, signed presence officer.1 Twice receiving asked return; twice manager said "no." did stop Hicks; January 1999 again 18.2-119. 15 maintained access both void vagueness. On appeal conviction, three-judge panel initially rejected Hicks' contentions, but en banc reversed. court held "traditional forum," notwithstanding ordinance declaring them closed, conviction ground violated 36 49, 56, 548 249, 253 (2001). affirmed Appeals, different reasons. Without deciding forum, concluded acknowledging "designed punish activities Amendment," 58, 680 (2002), "the clearly ibid. defective determine individual's "authorized," allowing her "prohibit she finds personally distasteful offensive even though may Amendment." 60, 2d, 680-681. We granted Commonwealth's petition certiorari. 537 1169 (2003). II 16 does contend engaged arrested; validity statute Instead claims Amendment, applied him—or anyone else.2 doctrine exception our normal regarding standards challenges. See Members Los Angeles Taxpayers Vincent, 466 789, 796 (1984). "judged 615 (1973), law, Black, 538 343, 367 (2003); New York Ferber, 458 747, 769, n. 24 (1982); Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 491, 7, 497 (1965). 17 have provided expansive remedy out concern deter "chill" speech—especially imposes criminal sanctions. Schaumburg Citizens Better Environment, 444 620, 634 (1980); Bates Bar Ariz., 433 350, (1977); NAACP Button, 371 415, (1963). Many persons, rather than undertake considerable burden (and sometimes risk) vindicating their rights case-by-case litigation, will choose simply abstain Dombrowski, supra, 486-487—harming only themselves society whole, deprived uninhibited marketplace ideas. Overbreadth adjudication, suspending overinclusive reduces caused withholding 18 As we noted Broadrick, comes point chilling effect be, justify prohibiting law—particularly reflects state interests maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful, conduct." S., 615. For created blocks especially ensure swallow benefits "overbroad," insisted "substantial," absolute sense, relative scope applications, ibid., before applying "strong medicine" 19 Petitioner asks impose restrictions standing," availability challenges whose own involved some sort expressive activity. Brief 13, 24-31. makes same proposal, Amicus Curiae 14-17, urges "should entertained," 10. problem proposals reviewing here decision Court; standing rules limit federal courts' certain claims. "[S]tate courts bound limitations controversy justiciability address issues law." ASARCO Inc. Kadish, 490 605, 617 (1989). Whether should entertained entirely matter law. 20 may, holding violates examine, particular, produce invalidity. These questions involve standing, determination [a] merits." Secretary Md. Joseph Munson Co., 467 947, 958-959 Because invoked petitioning writ certiorari, clear ASARCO, 617-618. suffered, consequence "final judgment altering tangible legal rights," 619, fact—inability trespass—that "distinct palpable" III, Warth Seldin, 422 490, 501 (1975). accordingly proceed inquiry, leaving another day ordinary litigant rest claim relief third parties, see Valley Forge Christian College Americans Separation Church State, Inc., 454 464, 474 (1982), would exclude initiation court. C 21 allowed Gloria Rogers, exercise "unfettered discretion" determining Va., 59, 680. Specifically, faulted wishing hand flyers sidewalks need obtain Rogers' permission. Ibid. policy, concluded, allows Rogers offensive." 681. 22 course, He receive must based objection requirement demonstrators permission, declared entire void—including arrest. provisions severable course Leavitt Jane L., 518 137, 139 (1996) (per curiam), implicitly decided not—that components stand fall together. It could properly decree reason taken substantially judged sweep.3 claimant bears demonstrating, "from text [the law] fact," exists. Club Assn., York, 487 1, (1988). 23 made regard whole—even assuming, arguendo, unlawfulness policy's Rogers. Consider "no-return" served nonresidents Court: failed given testified demonstrations permitted long obtained advance. 100-102. Thus, evidently includes demonstrating; otherwise, lack permit activity falls outside purpose[s]" entry. far appears, until one receives trespass. provision notice: certainly postnotice entry engaging And established purpose. subjects reenter warned return—regardless whether, return, seek (the anything Punishing wishes more punishment (pursuant lawful regulation) banned park vandalizing it, ignores ban order take part demonstration. Here, there, nonexpressive conduct— rule—not punished trespasser. 25 Most importantly, enter strollers, loiterers, dealers, roller skaters, bird watchers, soccer players, others conduct—a group seemingly outnumber speakers. requires shown, record case, whole surprising, doctrine's "chilling" "attenuates otherwise behavior forbids moves `pure speech' toward Rarely, if ever, succeed (such picketing demonstrating). Applications still used policy. grounds—and preserved—are leave open remand. 26 27 reasons, reverse remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 28 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal et al. G. Broaddus, Jonathan T. Blank, Baxter II, Godfrey Pinn, Jr., John Rupp; Large Public Authorities Robert Graham, F. Maher, Carl Coan III; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger; National League Cities Richard Ruda I. Crowley. amici affirmance American Civil Liberties Union Mark J. Lopez, Shapiro, Rebecca Glenberg, David M. Porter; DKT Liberty Project Julia Carpenter; Tenants Organization Catherine Bishop; Thomas Jefferson Center Protection Free Expression Joshua Wheeler O'Neil; Watchtower Bible Tract Society Paul Polidoro Philip Brumley. Alabama Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, Missouri, Layton, Solicitor, Erwin O. Switzer Michele L. Jackson, Alabama, respective jurisdictions follows: Gregg Renkes Alaska, Brady Delaware, Bennett Hawaii, Steve Carter Indiana, Charlie Crist, Florida, Mike Moore Mississippi, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Hardy Myers Oregon, Anabelle Rodríguez Puerto Rico, Lawrence Long South Dakota, Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah. letter stated, "`This serves inform you effective immediately welcome official informing If seen caught premises, police.'" 53, 677 (2002) noted, entitled vacatur unquestionably valid statute, violated. reach compels result Contrary SOUTER's suggestion,post, 124 (concurring opinion), focus solely element "[i]n comparing ones purposes doctrine." contains "comparing" whatever; proportionality aspect ignored. Since, struck down 29 whom BREYER joins, concurring. 30 I join add afterword flag here, might turn. apparently assumed appropriate analysis authority's is, distributing literature authorization. 58-60, 680-681 (finding although designed activities, prohibit "that offensive" "speech religious nature"). We, hand, broader view relevant looking potential unwritten. Ante, position takes "law" assessed, way. Regardless forms denominator fraction numerator small finding overbreadth. But circumstances, chosen comparison decide dispositive say, city's analyzed alone combined policies governing expression schoolyards, municipal cemeteries, chamber. Suffice say today's how go about identifying analysis.

Category: 2