Document: 534 U.S. 316122 S.Ct. 775151 L.Ed.2d 783 CAREN CRONK THOMAS and WINDY CITY HEMP DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PETITIONERSv.CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT No. 00-1249. United States Supreme Court Argued December 3, 2001Decided January 15, 2002 Syllabus Respondent Chicago Park District adopted an ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events in public parks. The provides that the may deny on any of 13 specified grounds, must process applications within 28 days, explain its reasons for denial. An unsuccessful applicant appeal, first, Districts general superintendent then state court. Petitioners, dissatisfied has denied some, though not all, their permits hold rallies advocating legalization marijuana, filed 42 C. 1983 suit, alleging, inter alia, is unconstitutional face. granted summary judgment, Seventh Circuit affirmed. Held: 1.A content-neutral scheme regulating uses (including speech uses) forum need contain procedural safeguards described Freedman v. Maryland, 380 51. inapposite because, unlike motion picture censorship case, subject-matter but time, place, manner regulation use forum. None grounds denying anything do with content speech. Indeed, directed at communicative activity as such, all park. And object exclude particular communication, coordinate multiple limited space; assure preservation park facilities; prevent dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible uses; financial accountability damage caused by event. Pp.47. 2. A can be applied such stifle free expression. It thus adequate standards guide officials decision render subject effective judicial review. See Niemotko 340 268, 271. meets this test. That describes which does mean it allows waive requirements some favored speakers. Such waiver would unconstitutional, abuse dealt if when pattern unlawful favoritism appears, rather than insisting upon rigid, no-waiver application requirements. Pp. 79. 3.Because Freedmans requirements, reach question whether requirement prompt review means determination commencement proceedings. 910. 227 F.3d 921, Scalia, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. On writ certiorari united states court appeals seventh circuit Justice Scalia 1 This case presents municipal must, consistent First Amendment, 51 (1965). 2 * Respondent, (Park District), responsible operating parks other property Chicago. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 70, 1505/7.01 (2001). Pursuant authority establish needful rules regulations government protection under jurisdiction, 1505/7.02, requires person order conduct assembly, parade, picnic, event involving more fifty individuals, engage creat[ing] emit[ting] Amplified Sound. Dist. Code, VII, C.3.a(1), C.3.a(6). [a]pplications shall processed receipt, C.5.a, decide grant 14 days unless, written notice applicant, extends period additional C.5.c. Applications grounds. C.5.e.1 If denies application, clearly set forth writing denial and, where feasible, propose measures cure defects application. C.5.d, C.5.e. When basis prior receipt competing same time suggest alternative times places. seven file appeal General Superintendent District, who act days. C.6.a. affirms denial, seek common-law certiorari. Norton Nicholson, 187 App. 3d 1046, 1057-1058, 543 N.E. 2d 1053, 1059 (1989). 3 Petitioners have several occasions marijuana. others. Not satisfied, petitioners action pursuant U.S.C. Northern Illinois, judgment favor Appeals 921 (2000). We 532 1051 II 4 Amendments guarantee freedom speech, press prohibits wide assortment restraints expression, core against was licensing laws implemented monarch Parliament evils printing 16th- 17-century England. Printing Act 1662 had prescribed what could printed, print, sell. Mayton, Toward Theory Amendment Process: Injunctions Speech, Subsequent Punishment, Costs Prior Restraint Doctrine, 67 Cornell L.Rev. 245, 248 (1982). punished publication book pamphlet without license required works submitted approval official, wielded broad suppress he found heretical, seditious, schismatical, offensive. F. Siebert, Freedom Press England, 14761776, p.240 (1952). English system expired end 17th century, memory abuses still vivid enough colonial Blackstone warned restrictive power licenseran administrative official enjoyed unconfined pass W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 152 (1769). 5 In (1965), we confronted law enacted strikingly similar restraint pictures. every film Board Censors shown anywhere State. reject films considered obscene tend[ed], Board, debase corrupt morals incite crimes, characteristics defined statute terms. Id., 52, n.2. exhibition advance approval, even received been properly submitted. no defense protected Amendment. 6 recognized conditioning expression bodys peculiar dangers constitutionally 57. [T]he censors business censor, ibid., body likely will overestimate controversial determining, regard actual effect audience, [the] morals, id., Cf. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Conrad, 420 546, 561, n.11 (1975). response these grave system, Freedman, supra, 58, held certain avoid constituting invalid restraint: (1) imposed only brief during status quo maintained; (2) expeditious available; (3) censor bear burden going proof once FW/PBS, Inc. Dallas, 493 215, (1990) (principal OConnor, joined Stevens, Kennedy, JJ.) (citing 5860). 7 contend like initiate litigation specify deadline challenge those contentions. because issue here authorize licensor speech: speaker might say. (unlike classic scheme) conducted picnicker soccer-player, less political activist parade marshal, apply 50-person limit exceeded. (as plainly indicated permissible denial) communication content, space, facilities, are rules, As well put it: [T]o allow unregulated access comers easily reduce enlarge utility 924 (CA7 2000). 8 never adhere Freedman.2 standard gives differs toto coelo from one terms, nondiscriminatory practice, considerations safety like. 282 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring result). [permit] kind prepublication deemed liberty since John Milton ministerial, police routine adjusting rights citizens so opportunity preserved. Poulos New Hampshire, 345 395, 403 (1953). Regulations ensure convenience people inconsistent civil liberties [are] safeguarding good [civil liberties] ultimately depend. Cox 312 569, 574 (1941). traditional exercise raise concerns prompted us impose extraordinary Freedman. III 9 Of course restrictions Where enjoys unduly discretion determining permit, there risk disfavor based content. Forsyth County Nationalist Movement, 505 123, 131 (1992). Niemotko, fails test.3 10 think not. described, ordinance. n.1, supra. deny, example, incomplete contains material falsehood misrepresentation; damaged paid damage; earlier place; intended present unreasonable danger health users employees; violated terms permit. Moreover, C.5.c, These reasonably specific objective, leave whim administrator. County, U.S., 133. They provide narrowly drawn, reasonable definite licensors determination, ibid. (quoting 271). they enforceable reviewfirst see C.6.a, Illinois courts, 1053 (1989), essentially type provided procedure act, Nowicki Evanston Fair Housing Review Bd., 62 11, 14, 338 N. E. 186, 188 11 criteria insufficiently precise so. This, contend, speakers, while them certainly intent ordinance, interpreted overlooking inadequacies that, circumstances, harm policies furthered Tr. Oral Arg. 3132. Granting waivers speakers (or, precisely, disfavored speakers) degree rigidity few legal arrangements. theory, obscenity law, placing limits expenditures, constitutional flaw, merely permits, require, prosecution. prophylaxis achieved far outweighed, think, accompanying senseless prohibition (and park) organizations fail meet technical reason another pose designed avoid. balance, permissive nature furthers, constricts, 12 Because questions certiorari, Courts divided: Compare Nightclubs, Paducah, 202 884, 892893 (CA6 2000); Baby Tam & Co. Las Vegas, 154 1097, 1101 (CA9 1998); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Prince Georges 58 988, 9981001 (CA4 1995) (en banc), Boss Capital, Casselberry, 1251, 12551257 (CA11 1999); TKs Video, Denton 24 705, 709 (CA5 1994); Graff Chicago, 1309, 13241325 1993) banc); Jews Jesus, Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 984 1319, 1327 (CA1 1993). For foregoing reasons, affirm Appeals. ordered. Notes: Section C.5.e relevant part: 15 To extent permitted whose behalf made misrepresentations regarding scope previously issued applicant. also following grounds: 16 attachments submissions) fully completed executed; 17 tendered fee user fee, indemnification agreement, insurance certificate, security deposit Superintendent; 18 19 (4) legally incompetent contract sue sued; 20 (5) full damage, outstanding unpaid debts District; 21 (6) executed place received, authorizing activities occupancy part hereof; 22 (7) conflict planned programs organized scheduled 23 (8) proposed prohibited classifications thereof designated chapter, C.1., above; (9) park, Employees public; 25 (10) complied cannot comply applicable licensure ordinances concerning sale offering goods services; 26 (11) Code . 215 (1990), two involved target[ed] businesses purveying sexually explicit 224. argue satisfy our jurisprudence, message, tailored serve significant governmental interest, open ample alternatives communication. 130 (1992); Clark Community Creative NonViolence, 468 288, 293 (1984).

Category: 2