Document: 391 U.S. 353 88 S.Ct. 1666 20 L.Ed.2d 642 Robert ZWICKER et al.v.James BOLL al. No. 573, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1967. May 20, 1968 Melvyn Zarr, William M. Kunstler and Anthony G. Amsterdam, for appellants. Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen. Wisconsin, A. Platz, Thomas Lockyear, Charles Bleck, Asst. Attys. Gen., appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. affirm also granted judgment affirmed. Cameron v. Johnson, 390 611, 1335, 182. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 3 Appellants are graduate undergraduate students at University Wisconsin active student political civil rights organizations. They brought an action District Western seeking a declaratory that disorderly conduct statute1 overbroad therefore unconstitutional on its face, or injunction restraining state criminal prosecutions under statute which were pending against them. 4 alleged their complaint preceding arrests they engaged only peaceful constitutionally protected protest activities. protesting American policy Vietnam. made various buildings appellants others had gathered object chemical manufacturer napalm being permitted employment interviews buildings. arrested 'disorderly conduct' statute. We know such statutes historically have been used reprisal unpopular groups persons who espouse causes. Cf. Brown State Louisiana, 383 131, 86 719, 15 637; Cox 379 536, 85 453, 13 471; Taylor 370 154, 82 1188, 8 395; Garner 368 157, 248, 7 207. But practice no longer permissible now First Amendment applicable by reason Fourteenth. 5 A three-judge court was convened dismissed after oral argument but without conducting evidentiary hearing. Judge Fairchild, concurring, believed 28 U.S.C. § 22832 prohibited issuance injunction; Doyle, dissenting, contrary opinion. Gordon found it unnecessary reach question, deciding rather abstain favor proceedings. 6 In addition attacking as void face overbreadth, instituted purposes harassment discriminatory manner account beliefs.3 Appellees answer denied these allegations attached copies complaints filed proceedings interfering with classes speaking loud voices refusing when requested do so. stated Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 489-490, 1116, 1122-1123, 14 22, abstention doctrine inappropriate cases justifiably challenged either 'as applied purpose discouraging activities.' my view, adequately effected bad faith order punish discourage exercise rights. Since issue fact presented, I would remand below directions plenary hearing point.4 facts surrounding suggest solely nature appellants' protest.5 Moreover, several court, appended appellees' this case, raise strong suspicion carried out faith.6 9 Where there faith, harassment, discrimination, critical evidence matter can be drawn upon cross-examination officials involved. question not guilt innocence charged, whether commenced manner. See 619-620, 621, 1340-1341, If charge shown, federal claim established.7 And what courts later did, interim 'continuing harassment' exercising entitle them relief. U.S., AT 490, S.Ct., 1123. 10 For reasons note probable jurisdiction, vacate below, case preliminary use people expression views. Wis.Stat. 947.01 reads pertinent part: '947.01. Disorderly conduct. Whoever does any following may fined more than $100 imprisoned 30 days: (1) public private place, engages violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, otherwise circumstances tends cause provoke disturbance. * *' 2283 provides: 'A grant stay except expressly authorized Act Congress, where necessary aid protect effectuate judgments.' Paragraphs 12 alleged: 'Plaintiffs allege arrest Statute basically lawful depriving freedom speech assembly association, petitioning Government redress grievances guaranteed Fourteenth Amendments Constitution, 42 1983. Further enforcement Section 947.01, Statutes, Conduct Statute, will effect punishing those plaintiffs prosecuted rights, privileges immunities secured Constitution laws States; has [sic] deter similarly situated from future immunities; encouraged encourage defendants other State, County local officials, acting color law, engage further acts intimidation, threats actions meant prevent privileges, immunities. basic effects intimidating harassing deterring from, free association to: '1. Oppose policies Government, supporting contributing war effort Vietnam; '2. foreign '3. Or publicly express unorthodox views issues vital concern. 'This intimidation pursuant discrimination encouraged, followed enforced legislation including executive judicial branches Wisconsin. applied. It permits encourages discriminate beliefs ideas, intimidate harass arrest, detention, brutality, excessive bail prosecution threat thereof, all speech, assembly, concern oppose certain States, issues, equal protection States.' Whether constitutes bar refrained appears might improper grounds. 613, n. (majority opinion), 628, (dissenting 1337, 1344, alleges appellant Cohen attempted enter university's Commerce Building carrying signs Vietnam permitting building. Cohen, alone, stopped just inside door police officers told he could building signs. He grabbed officer pushed away. Appellee Hansen (chief department security) summoned. allegedly Cohen's threw into snow. When asked why did that, replied, 'Because you make me nervous time, nervous.' then jostled stated, 'I don't like you.' moved point some students, Zwicker, discussion. group his destroyed; appeared one handed Cohen. began yelling talk signs, tearing up Some jostling shoving apparently ensued grab Another university official regulation broken, dont know, looks enough.' taken These documents because nuisance disturbance.' 947.01(1). example, while Webb formally charges disorderliness tendency disturbance, nothing complaint's statement 'essential facts' supports charge. 'was demonstration Chemical Engineering Madison Campus. Defendant sitting interview room conducted prospective employment. times refused.' Other similar facts; still spoke thereby disrupted classes, language come within scope 947.01(1) ('unreasonably . [tending] disturbance'). if demonstrate allege, purposefully intentionally suppress ideas espouse, convicted. Snowden Hughes, 321 1, 64 397, L.Ed. 497; Note, Discriminatory Law Enforcement Equal Protection From Law, 59 Yale L.J. 354 (1950). 141-142, 723-724, 637. see People Darcy, Cal.App.2d 342, 360, 139 P.2d 118, 129 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1943) opinion). ('It much better society accused should go free, our processes polluted founded prejudice hatred accused.') 1983 'Every person who, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects, causes subjected, citizen jurisdiction thereof deprivation laws, shall liable party injured suit equity, proper proceeding redress.'

Category: 2