Document: 401 U.S. 77 91 S.Ct. 758 27 L.Ed.2d 696 John S. BOYLE, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court Cook County, Illinois, et al., Appellants,v.Lawrence LANDRY al. No. 4. Reargued Nov. 16, 1970. Decided Feb. 23, 1971. Thomas E. Brannigan, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Ellis Reid, appellees. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 This action was brought in federal court by seven groups Negro residents seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against enforcement number Illinois statutes Chicago ordinances on grounds that they violated various provisions Federal Constitution. The complaint named as defendants sought relief officials County City Chicago: Mayor, Judge, two Magistrates Court, State's Attorney county, Sheriff, Superintendent Police, city's Corporation Counsel his assistant, three city police officers. Their challenged invalid prohibiting mob action,1 resisting arrest,2 aggravated assault,3 battery,4 intimidation.5 They alleged some plaintiffs had been arrested under these those prosecutions were currently pending state courts, Negroes being intimidated exercise their First Amendment rights (1) through wholesale use all to be unconstitutional prosecute members community (2) arrests without probable cause, coupled with setting exorbitant bail. contended threatened enforce sole purpose harassing intimidating plaintiffs. requested convening three-judge 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 2284, declaration unconstitutional, temporary permanent injunctions any possible future question. 2 answered opposing issuance injunction, moved dismiss grounds, among other, whom then pending, there adequate remedy at law would able present constitutional challenges involved criminal proceedings, such barred § 2283 from issuing proceedings,6 matters no facts showing prosecution statutes, or suffer irreparable injury if required defend might them court. 3 single District denied defendants' motion convened court,7 280 F.Supp. 929. court, 938, upheld except one subsection mob-action statute which prohibited '(t)he assembly more persons do unlawful act * *,'8 intimidation person threats '(c) ommit offense. *'9 These last subsections declared overly broad sweep within scope conduct could not constitutionally made criminal. decreed defendants—city county officials—'be are hereby perpetually enjoined restrained under' statutory it unconstitutional. defendant did appeal court's invalidating holding is therefore before us. We have us only unconstitutionality statute. 4 It obvious allegations this case fall far short actual other officials. Not citizens who ever prosecuted, charged, even particular below held All charges deal broadly generally appellees originally challenged. In fact, contains mention specific threat officer official State arrest either time many times. Rather, appears suit search view picking out certain ones thought possibly used authorities devices bad-faith them. There nothing contained infer jeopardy suffering left free normal manner. As our holdings today Younger v. Harris, 37, 746, 669, Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688, show, course cannot disrupted blocked basis analysis amount than speculation about future. policy century half interference courts set aside flimsy relied upon here. 5 For reasons above greater length Samuels, we reverse. 6 Reversed remanded. 7 BRENNAN, WHITE MARSHALL concur result. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 25—1 (1967). Ill.Rev.Stat. 31—1. 12—2. 12—4. 12—6. provides that: 'A United States may grant stay proceedings expressly authorized Act Congress, where necessary aid its jurisdiction, protect effectuate judgments.' found appropriate determination claims certified addition, abandoned challenge constitutionality assault battery statutes. 8 25—1, '(a) Mob consists following: '(2) *.' 9 12—6, (a) A commits when, intent cause another perform omit performance act, he communicates lawful authority following acts: '(3) Commit offense

Category: 8