Legal Document

381 U.S. 741 85 Supreme Court Reporter 1751 14 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 715 Reverend John Earl CAMERON et al.v.Hon. Paul JOHNSON, Governor of Mississippi, al. Number 587, Misc. the June 7, 1965 Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Benjamin E. Smith, Bruce C. Waltzer, Melvin Wulf and Morton Stavis, for appellants. Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. Atlantic Allain, Asst. Gen., appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants brought this action, inter alia, under § 1979 Revised Statutes, 42 Code KF62 1983 (1958 ed.), to enjoin enforcement Mississippi Anti-Picketing statute,* on grounds that it was an unconstitutionally broad regulation speech, being applied purpose discouraging appellants' civil rights activities. 2 The motion leave proceed in forma pauperis is granted. judgment, 244 F.Supp. 846, vacated cause remanded reconsideration light Dombrowski versus Pfister, 380 479, 1116. On remand, District should first consider whether 28 2283 ed.) bars a federal injunction case, see at 484, n. 2, S.Ct., 1119. If not bar, court then determine relief proper criteria set forth Dombrowski. 3 Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom HARLAN STEWART join, dissenting. 4 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent from reversal judgment manner which done. A cryptic, uninformative per curiam order no way, think, decide case involving as one does State's power make offense people obstruct public streets highways block ingress egress its buildings properties. also involves question whether, having passed such law, valid face, State can prosecute offenders own courts or have all state prosecutions merely because charge law unconstitutional without determining constitutionality statute. 5 Every person who has slighest information about what going country understand importance these issues. summary disposition makes fails properly enlighten deserve know are people, affected groups, Federal Government, field activities encompasses some most burning, pressing important issues our time. There many earnest, honest, good Nation entitled exactly how far they constitutional right go using advocate causes just. officials same information. already waited entirely too long, my perform duty clarifying issues.1 These great am opinion before relegates position mere onlookers struggles over their accesses buildings, least write making clear interested boundaries between do cannot. Today's esoteric more less mysterious gives 6 This action by behalf picketers demonstrators charges now pending against them were courts2 violating statute provided: 7 'It shall be unlawful any person, singly concert others, engage picketing mass demonstrations interfere free premises, property, county municipal courthouses, city halls, office jails, other property owned government located therein transaction business administration justice thereon conducted so use streets, sidewalks ways adjacent contiguous thereto.'3 8 Their complaint asked enjoined enforcing others. alleged face plaintiffs persons similarly situated language vague ambiguous ordinary intelligence could it, sweeping terms used, had been would harass persecute blocking doors passageways, but simply demonstrating, prohibit.4 They addition Legislature actually discourage protesting denial voting Negroes. majority found fact evidence stipulated parties neither nor anyone else interfered demonstrating,5 9 'on occasions suit when arrested charged Act, deliberately intentionally blocked sidewalk entrances courthouse Forrest County, walking close together entrance exit said visitors impossible.' 10 held serious claim made therefore refused issue forbidding prosecution offenses law. And there harassment plaintiffs, except exist dismissed complaint.6 11 If, believe, dismissing leaving trials acted accordance unbroken line Court's cases back early days country. See, e.g., Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 63 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324; Watson Buck, 313 387, 61 962, 1416; Beal Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 45, 418, 577; Spielman Motor Sales company Dodge, 295 89, 55 678, 79 1322; Fenner Boykin, 271 240, 46 492, 70 927. It true Ex parte Young, 209 123, 441, 52 714, harassing starting multitudinous criminal where severe cumulative punishments might accrue involved tested. In absence extraordinary situation, however, uniformly refrain interfering laws. Thus supra, reason permit proceeding even though day declared similar application. Murdock Commonwealth Pennsylvania, 105, 870, 1292.7 12 cryptic directs 'On * *.' But considered 22838 very beginning stated 13 '* jurisdictional, expresses clearly definitely policy thinking Congress. Such books years still stands above quoted form. Certainly times exceptional, facts record approach situation.' F.Supp., 851. appellants argue 2283, injunctions actions instituted courts, applicable here removed remand orders stayed, class 'The basic sought enjoining prospective applicability appeal if uncertain statute's application lower decided it. 15 exceedingly brief bar 'determine Dombrowski' Apparently means indicate recent decision created new rule authorizing officers laws narrowly drawn forbid obstructing street traffic buildings. citing seems indicating existence rule, since futile gesture formally Jeannette before: 'There basis reasonable construction doubted.' Since expressed view us unless wants either upset findings hold, subversive Dombrowski, challenged face. 16 did participate think here. Dombbrowski approve district prevent void violation First Fourteenth Amendments ground overbreadth susceptible improper abridging freedom expression, part plan 'to employ arrests, seizures, threats prosecution' way complainants supporters asserting attempting vindicate rights. held, read opinion, kind (as distinguished committing lawless acts) only (1) purely harass, hope ultimate success, (2) as, 'overly expression,' (3) 'no readily apparent suggests itself vehicle rehabilitating single Crucial holding whatever finding shown statement that: 17 '(A)bstention serves legitimate regulating speech attacked where, here, conduct indictments within reach acceptable limiting anticipated result sort 'hardcore' obviously prohibited construction.' U.S., 491—492, 1123. (Emphasis supplied.) 18 indicates me officers, acting color valid, engaging deprives federally guaranteed statutory Compare Statutes-at-Large 13, ed). Stating bases permitting present enough show cannot control case. Here allegation fact, specific contrary. certainly unquestionably indispensable ingredient required blanket enforcement—a face—is absent convinced, hearing argument, infringement constitutionally protected expression. 19 unconstitutionality possibly maintained. What forbids find hard take seriously vagueness doubt fourth grade schoolboy him, alone (here courthouse) those Nor overly covers. undertake regulate demonstrating could—see Cox Louisiana, 379 559, 575, 453, 466, 471 (concurring opinion); National Labor Relations Board Fruit Vegetable Packers, 377 58, 76, 84 1063, 1073, 129 opinion). modestly provides carry will others want travel out building. precisely drawn, patently designed accomplish objective. fits often-repeated description exercise generally unquestioned 536, 554—555, 464, 471; Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 60 736, 745, 1093; Schneider New Jersey, 308 147, 160—161, 146, 161, 155. Far questioning State, 160, 150: 20 'Municipal authorities, trustees public, keep communities' open available movement primary dedicated. So long legislation end abridge liberty rightfully upon impart through distribution literature, may lawfully streets. For example taking his stand middle crowded street, contrary regulations, maintain stoppage seem inconsistent whole system say Constitution somehow takes away subdivisions general exercised consistently special guarantees, discriminated account race, religion; not, draw invidious discriminations course than State. 21 respects like sustained few months ago challenge unjustified restriction freedoms Amendments. That statute, modeled after Act Congress 1950, 64 1018, 1507 Louisiana picket parade near intent impeding justice. stated: 22 subject statute—picketing parading—is intertwined expression association.' 563, 476, 480. 23 companion day, 'Governmental authorities responsibility movement.' 464. 'A group demonstrators,' said, 'could insist cordon off private building, allow pass agree listen exhortations.' Id., 555, emphasized 'control governmental insure' 'public order, lost excesses anarchy.' 554, we recently must deny Negroes register vote. 128, 808, 717. this, course, mean come Mississippi. We hesitation condemn discriminatory equal firmness, protect get into move along freely obstruction. 24 believe moment intended authorize completely suspending defendants allege doing courts. thing, quicker reconsidered give 'limiting construction' better States, live atmosphere peace quiet. Creating hurdles conviction violate ranked exigent needs times, least. Perhaps time Nation's history greater need render impotent require permitted views air grievances place place—the pay taxes build 25 tells probably hundreds alone. difficult foresee signal invitation many, efforts tie hands threatened prompted desire harass. Much late threat prompt efficient increasing workload courts.9 argument deciding cases, amiss point implicitly adopts bound bring ever-increasing number until weigh motives instituting prosecutions. delays arrests accused trials. law's delays—which really guilty man's effective defense—are multiplied beyond measure. Moreover, forgotten big country—too expect Government creation local throughout formed mind. wise conformity national vigilant alert put much strain bodily transfer stateto federal-court jurisdiction is, effect, initial step trial and, affirm judgment. 26 WHITE, 27 authority 1116, while joined numerous sundry provisions Louisiana's Subversive Activities Communist Control Law Propaganda statutes 'violate Amendment guarantees securing overbreath suspectible rights.' 482, 1118. enforce 'plan harass' denied allegations irreparable injury warranting intervention court. reversed. Court, outset, fully explicitly accepted teaching 'that interference good-faith peculiarly framework' 'the possibility erroneous standards usually amount necessary justify disruption orderly proceedings.' 484—485, 1120. Without possible invalidity equitable relief, Terrace Thompson, 263 197, 214, 44 15, 17, 68 255, imminence immune faith acts, 163—164, 881, 1324, sufficient showing rights, dissipated particular prosecution, warrant controlling both abstention depiction 'situation defense assure adequate vindication 485, situation depicted contain elements operative 29 hold traditional limitations court's imminent proceedings relaxed whenever Rather two kinds challenges processes. planned prosecutorial misuse attack Where expectation 'part harass,' obvious suffice avoid injury. scheme scheme, including future statutes, quite irrelevant Similarly plethora assailed invalidly vague, overbroad, consequent areas Amendment, impact remove vice vagueness. 'those burdens defending prosecutions, however expeditious, aimed hammering structure piecemeal, likelihood obviating uncertainty others.' 491, To relegate party likely standing terrorem effect prosecuted convicted. reasoning accounts relaxation doctrine unclear Baggett Bullitt, 360, 1316, 377, pertinent rationale 30 ordinarily necessarily entailed based belief violated Although demonstrations, them, Indeed, petitioners peaceful nonobstructive, claims core represents wholly duplicative adjudication factual matter dispute trial. 31 substantial overbroadness issue.1 Its these: 32 premises. thereto.' 33 'obstruct' 'interfere' raise open-ended. deal such—it ban forms picketing, 471—but rather obstructions interferences thereto, assuredly permissible subjects regulation. 453. 'aim specifically evils allowable area control,' 97, 742, guess fanciful ends coverage begins. Cf. 373—375, 1324. 34 thus emerges view, assertion type covered obstructive example, proscribed. Whether beside point, circumstances requires sanction Whatever 'criteria' contains, barring injunctive waived. 35 '(T)he proceedings,' 484 ordinance religious solicitation, 'since lawfulness determined injunction.' 163, 881. unlike Pfister indistinguishable entail 'extensive adjudications, variety situations,' 378, 1326, bounds. prosecution.' 36 hazards posed requiring follow Numerous establish intervention. 15; 927; 877. 37 obvious, several Brethren guidance judge unrevealing ignores differences immediate concern note probable down argument.2 House Bill 546, Gen.Laws Miss. 1964, chapter 343. See Bell Maryland, 378 226, 242, 1814, 1823, 822 (opinion DOUGLAS, J.); id., 318, 384 (BLACK, J., dissenting); Hamm Rock Hill, 306, 384, 392, 300 dissenting). informed 170 state-court court, purportedly 1443 ed.). ordered Appeals stayed orders, Fifth Circuit. Hartfield 21811; Anderson 21813; Carmichael Greenwood, 22289. assumed unsuccessful Circuit seek review another year. appears add devices collection delaying tactics collateral litigation coming years, ever. First, Fifth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth therefore, further finds prosecuting faith, conclusion 848. conclusions dismiss thought construe tried reasons assigned dismissal well established appellee whose favor rendered affirmance ground. MR. JUSTICE CLARK denying petition habeas corpus circumstances, 'This fall short processes otherwise petitioner her conviction, effectively particularly highest remedied appropriate appellate States. U.S.Code Section 2241, 2254 1257.' Application Wyckoff, D.C., 196 515, discussed Brown Rayfield, 320 Reporter, 2nd 96, 98—99 (C.A.5th Cir.). grant stay expressly authorized Congress, aid jurisdiction, effectuate judgments.' Case Nebraska, 337, 340, 1486 opinions); Linkletter Walker, 618, 1731. As recognizes, suits one; presence why inappropriate.

Classification Label: 2