Document: 394 U.S. 147 89 S.Ct. 935 22 L.Ed.2d 162 Fred L. SHUTTLESWORTH, Petitioner,v.CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALA. No. 42. Argued Nov. 18, 1968. Decided March 10, 1969. Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioner. Earl McBee, Birmingham, Ala., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner stands convicted violating an ordinance Alabama, making it offense to participate in any 'parade or procession other public demonstration' without first obtaining a permit from City Commission. question before us is whether that conviction can be squared with Constitution United States. 2 On afternoon April 12, Good Friday, 1963, 52 people, all Negroes, were led out Birmingham church by three Negro ministers, one whom was petitioner, Shuttlesworth. They walked orderly fashion, two abreast most part, four blocks. purpose their march protest alleged denial civil rights Negroes city Birmingham. marchers stayed on sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere pedestrians. No automobiles obstructed, nor traffic signals disobeyed. group least part this time, walking alongside others, once moving front rear. As moved along, crowd spectators fell behind them distance. some points spilled into street, but blocked vehicles obstructed. 3 At end blocks stopped police, arrested § 1159 General Code That reads as follows: 4 'It shall unlawful organize hold, assist organizing holding, take in, parade demonstration streets ways city, unless therefore has been secured commission. 5 'To secure such permit, written application made commission, setting forth probable number persons, animals which will engaged parade, demonstration, held had, over, along desired have hold demonstration. commission grant prescribing may used therefor, its judgment welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals convenience require refused. It use purposes than those set said permit. 6 'The preceding paragraphs, however, apply funeral processions.' 7 violation sentenced 90 days' imprisonment hard labor additional 48 days default payment $75 fine $24 costs. Alabama Court Appeals reversed conviction, holding evidence insufficient 'to show would require, under terms 1159, getting permit,' ord nance had applied discriminatory unconstitutional imposing 'invidious prior restraint' ascertainable standards granting permits. 43 Ala.App. 68, 95, 83, 180 So.2d 114, 139, 127. Supreme giving language extraordinarily narrow construction, reinstated conviction. 281 Ala. 542, 206 348. We granted certiorari consider petitioner's constitutional claims, 390 1023, 88 1417, 20 280. 8 There no doubt ordinance, written, conferred upon Commission virtually unbridled absolute power prohibit 'parade,' 'procession,'1 'demonstration' city's ways. For deciding withhold members guided only own ideas 'public convenience.' This therefore, squarely within ambit many decisions over last 30 years, law subjecting exercise First Amendment freedoms restraint license, narrow, objective, definite guide licensing authority, unconstitutional.2 settled long line recent which, like one, makes peaceful enjoyment guarantees contingent uncontrolled official—as requiring license withheld discretion official—is censorship freedoms.' Staub v. Baxley, 355 313, 322, 78 277, 282, 302. And our clear person faced ignore engage impunity right free expression purports license.3 hardly thought deny subjected restraints attack constitutionality, because he yielded demands.' Jones Opelika, 316 584, 602, 62 1231, 1242, 86 L.Ed. 1691 (Stone, C.J., dissenting), adopted per curiam rehearing, 319 103, 104, 63 890, 87 1290. 9 argued, what involved here 'pure speech,' sidewalks, municipality must rightfully great deal control interest regulation safety. That, course, true. emphasized 'the Fourteenth Amendments (do not) afford same kind freedom who communicate conduct patrolling, marching, picketing highways, these amendments pure speech.' Cox Louisiana, 379 536, 555, 85 453, 464, 13 471. 'Governmental authorities duty responsibility keep open available movement.' Id., 554—555, S.Ct., 464. 10 But also parading nonetheless constitute methods expression, entitled protection. supra; Edwards South Carolina, 372 229, 83 680, 697; Thornhill 310 88, 60 736, 84 1093. 'Whenever title parks rest, immemorially trust and, time mind, assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, discussing questions. Such places has, ancient times, privileges, immunities, rights, liberties citizens. privilege citizen States communication views national questions regulated all; absolute, relative, exercised subordination general comfort convenience, consonance peace order; not, guise regulation, abridged denied.' Hague C.I.O., 307 496, 515—516, 59 954, 964, 1423 (opinion Roberts, joined Black). 11 Accordingly, 'although (a) recognized statute enacted prevents serious interference normal usage parks, * we consistently condemned systems vest administrative official broad criteria unrelated proper places.' Kunz York, 340 290, 293—294, 71 312, 315, 95 See Saia 334 558, 68 1148, 92 1574; Niemotko Maryland, 268, 325, 328, 267, Even when involved, empower officials roam essentially will, dispensing withholding permission speak, assemble, picket, according opinions regarding potential effect activity 'welfare,' 'decency,' 'morals' community. 12 Understandably, principles, unable reach conclusion unconstitutional. clearly gave extensive authority issue refuse permits basis entirely legitimate municipal sidewalks. said, matter how constitutionally invalid authoritative construction now given so modified narrowed render cceptable. true affirming present case, performed remarkable job plastic surgery face ordinance. court stated provided could whenever 'in require,' really meant something quite different: 14 '(We) do construe (language) vesting unfettered denying permits, but, view connection public. act censors displayed parade. 15 '* (We) conferring 'commission' carry solely ground activities might tend provoke disorderly conduct. 16 'We arbitrary manner regard issuance Its uniformity method treatment facts each application, improper inappropriate considerations unfair discrimination. A systematic, consistent just order reference followed. Applications if, after investigation found thereby unduly disturbed.' 545—546, So.2d, 350—352. 17 In transforming authorizing more objective even-handed Birmingham's ways, commendable effort give legislation 'a field operation limits.' 544, 350. assume successful, authoritatively construed pass muster.4 does follow, severely narrowing put November 1967 necessarily serves restore validity occurred 1963 written. inquiry every case Chief Hughes Hampshire, 312 569, 61 762, 1049—whether was, fact, 'exerted unwarrantedly abridge assembly opportunities discussion associated resort 574, 765. 18 exerted unconstitutionally. dealing parade-permit silent governing appellants' convictions Hampshire anybody applied, subject specify 'time, place manner' accommodate competing demands streets. accepted state court's characterization statute, assurance appellants "had right, act, when, where did, if required disturbed, conditions charges avoid disturbance." U.S., 576, 766. judgment, careful emphasize: 19 'There administered otherwise fair nondiscriminatory require.' 577, are confronted different situation. book contained affirmatively refused.' taken extraordinary clairvoyance anyone perceive destined find years later; hanging balance, hesitate assuming either possessed Friday march. 21 need assumptions. For, respondent reminded us, assessing claims '(i)t less realistic surrounding relevant circumstances. These include developed Record shown related Walker (1946), 388 (87 1824, 1210) *.'5 petitioners Terms ago, record showing 'surrounding circumstances' suggests, properly judicial notice litigation parties us.6 Uncontradicted testimony offered week Shuttlesworth sent representative She went Hall asked see persons charge parading, picketing, demonstrating.' directed Commissioner Connor, denied her request uncertain terms. 'He 'No, you get picket. I picket Jail,' repeated twice.' 317, n. 9, 335, 339, 1830, 1834, 1839, 1841. 23 Two later himself telegram Connor requesting, behalf his organization, 'against injustices segregation discrimination.' His specified place, rules picketing' obeyed. reply, wire stating entire rather single Commissioner, closing blunt admonition: 'I insist your people start Alabama.' 318, 335—336, 339—340, 1839—1840, 1841—1842.7 24 make indisputably clear, think, 1963—at respect organization8—the exactly said. understand circumstances permitted demonstrate approved selected minimize problems. indication whatever considered themselves obligated—as were—to 'if, (they) 25 far cry supra, there nothing 'that Here, contrast, evident as, words Hughes, reversed. 26 Reversed. 27 BLACK concurs result. 28 MARSHALL took consideration decision case. 29 HARLAN, concurring. Court's carried efforts obtain highest court, march, proposals control. Thus, difficult presents ever bars State punishing marching procured remedies pursued. 31 answers rely statutory line, administering scheme. If vague unconstitutionally, word, assumption void. seems me seeds mischief impair conceded ability regulate thoroughfares interests all. requirement should, my view, turn substantial minor official's statute. 32 Simply inferior indicates statute's scope, follow State's judiciary come conclusion. Situations exist, effective review official. example, practical resort. One learned he, Public Safety, Commission.1 ordinances prompt Commission.2 Nor provide speedy permit.3 33 Given absence procedures, Reverend associates dilemma received Connor. attempted exhaust law, almost certain relief obtained Friday. Since political demonstrations is, appropriate conditions, fundamental aspect 'liberty' protected Amendment, Stromberg California, 283 359, 368—370, 51 532, 535—536, 75 1117 (1931); 963—964, (1939) J.); Garner 368 157, 201—203, 82 248, 271—272, 207 (1961) Harlan, J.), obliged invoke procedures him relief. With stake, adopt meaning belief regulations 34 suggested, Shuttlesworth's making. He requested months advance allowing Al bama's machinery necessary operate fully date suggestion ignores principle established. Freedman 380 51, 58 61, 734, 738—741, 649 (1965), prohibits cumbersome time-consuming expression. holds protect obscene movies, exhibitors review, lest victorious exhibitor propitious opportunity exhibition (passed).' 740. applicable here.4 assemble peaceably voice basic exhibit motion picture aesthetic value. Moreover, slow-moving much severe impact instant Freedman. Though movie suffer financial loss wait year while mills result, nevertheless likely ultimately film. timing essence politics. impossible predict future; event occurs, often one's heard promptly, To submit burden rights. Cf. William Rhodes, 393 23, 33, 5, 11, (1968). 35 mean suggest reasonably applications submitted early enough allow determine proposal important respecting local legitimately protect. handled expedited lost maze procedures. 36 Neither established nn. 3, supra. Indeed, establish procedure govern applications. Section timely. 'City Commission.'5 published answer e questions.6 37 guidelines, fairly good-faith authorities. acted approached manner—Commissioner member Shuttlesworth, broke off discussions relating After declared lacked reasonable believe time. neither sufficiently cannot punished expression.7 38 concur reversal Except processions. Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 666, 949; 1423; Schneider State, 308 147, 163—165, 146, 151—152, 155; Cantwell Connecticut, 296, 900, 1213; Largent Texas, 318 418, 667, 873; 600, 611, 1240, 1245, dissenting) (Murphy, J., vacated previous dissenting curiam, 1290; Marsh 326 501, 66 276, 265; Tucker 517, 274, 274; 280; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Wilson, 343 495, 72 777, 96 1098; Gelling 960, 1002, 1359; Superior Films, Department Education, etc., 346 587, 74 286, 98 329; 302; 471; Interstate Circuit, Dallas, 676, 1298, 225. 452—453, 669; 159, 165, 152; 419, 422, 668, 1241, 890; 319, 56—57, 737—738, 649. depend upon, among things, availability expeditious Commission's refusal Poulos 345 395, 420, 73 760, 773, 97 1105 (Frankfurter, concurring result); post, p. 159. Brief Respondent 1—2. National Fire Ins. Co. Thompson, 331, 336, 50 288, 881, cases cited therein. legal consti utional issues here. recently summarized 'In demonstrators proceeded prohibition injunctive against defend contempt asserting unconstitutionality injunction. procedure, held, seek injunction disobey it, well-founded doubts validity.' Carroll President Commissioners Princess Anne, 175, 179, 347, 350, 325. offer proof issued groups clerk bureau police department. U.s,., 325—326, 340, 1834—1835, 1840, 1842. agree Brother 307, 1210 (1967). J. Wigmore, Evidence 2579, 570 (3d ed. 1940); Butler Eaton, 141 240, 985, 713 (1891); Craemer Washington, 168 124, 1, 42 407 (1897). shows response 6, replied 5: 'Under provisions code individually responsiboity (sic) Alabama. 'Eugene 'Bill' Safety.' 249, October Term, 1966, Transcript 415. Connor's trial. Transcript, slightly earlier episode detailed STEWART'S opinion, ante, trial judge ruled uncontradicted supporting inadmissible. 355. fixed amount definitively even timely remaining regular session scheduled (1944). While 1964 2—10, 1944 Code, point. Although petitioned writ mandamus Circuit period None past licenses basis. 1049 (1941), argued. (1953), Poulos' religious services park refused Portsmouth Council seven one-half weeks event. sufficient way mandamus, 419—420, 773—774 Frankfurter), obligation rapid procedure. And, struck down regulatory schemes purported presented See, e.g., 949 (1938); 155 (1939); 873 (1943); 302 (1958). involving plenary principal government body large proceedings never passed past, delegated task officials. 290. admitted irrelevant. Ibid. Clerk, kept records granted, fill gaps left Ordinance. 286. followed Lovell, Schneider, Largent, Staub, 4, unconstitutionally impinge forms should extended cover 'parade' statutes involving, do, particularly interest.

Category: 2