Legal Document

402 U.S. 415 91 Supreme Court Reporter 1575 29 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1 ORGANIZATION FOR A BETTER AUSTIN et al., Petitioners,v.Jerome M. KEEFE. Number 135. Argued Jan. 20, 1971. Decided May 17, Syllabus Respondent real estate broker applied for and obtained from the Illinois courts an injunction enjoining petitioners distributing any literature in City of Westchester, on ground that their leaflets, critical respondent's alleged 'blockbusting' 'panic peddling' activities Austin area Chicago, invaded right privacy, were coercive intimidating rather than informative, thus not being entitled to First Amendment protection. Held; has met heavy burden justifying imposition prior restraint petitioners' peaceful distribution informational nature disclosed by this record. Pp. 418—420. 115 Ill.App.2d 236, 253 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 76, reversed. David C. Long, Ill., petitioners. Thomas W. McNamara, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We granted writ case consider claim order Circuit Cook County, Illinois, leaflets anywhere town violates rights under Federal Constitution. 2 Petitioner Organization a Better (OBA) is racially integrated community organization neighborhood Chicago. whose office business are neighborhood. He resides suburb Chicago some seven miles area. 3 OBA stated purpose 'stabilize' racial ratio For number years boundary Negro segregated moved progressively west Austin. OBA, its efforts area—so it describes program—has opposed protested various tactics generally known as or peddling.' 4 It was contention respondent had been one those who engaged such tactics, specifically he aroused fears local white residents Negroes coming into then, exploiting reactions emotions so aroused, able secure listings sell homes Negroes. since 1961 time actively promoted sales manner means flyers, phone calls, personal visits which his located, without regard whether persons solicited expressed desire homes. As 'boundary' marking furthest westward advance area, have along with it. 5 Community meetings arranged try persuade him change practices. Several other agents prevailed sign agreement whereby they would solicit property, phone, flyer, visit, community. consistently denied engaging refused sign, contending law saw fit. 6 Thereafter, during September October 1967, members petitioner distributed Westchester describing activities. There no evidence picketing Westchester. The challenged publications, now enjoined, practices neighborhood; set out card used listings, quoted saying 'I only Negroes,' cited Daily News article accused peddler.' Another leaflet, same general order, that: 'When signs agreement, we stop Westchester.' Two requested recipients call at home urge 'no solicitation' agreement. On several days given shopping center. two occasions passed parishioners way church Leaflets also left doors neighbors. trial court found 'distribution all conducted orderly manner, did cause disruption pedestrian vehicular traffic, precipitate fights, disturbances breaches peace.' One officers testified hoped be induced no-solicitation letting 'his neighbors know what doing us.' 7 sought December 1967. After adversary hearing entered temporary 'from passing pamphlets, kind, picketing, Illinois.' appeal Appellate District, affirmed, 76. sustained finding fact caused irreparable harm, adequate remedy law. appears viewed intimidating, informative therefore rested holding belief public policy State strongly favored protection privacy family encroachment activities.1 8 elementary, course, kind do concern themselves truth validity publication. Under Near versus Minnesota, 283 697, 51 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931), injunction, far imposes speech publication, constitutes impermissible rights. Here, case, operates, redress private wrongs, but suppress, basis previous 'of kind' city 18,000. 9 This often recognized activity pamphleteering form communication protected Amendment. E.g., Martin Struthers, 319 141, 63 862, 87 1313 (1943); Schneider State, 308 147, 60 146, 84 155 (1939); Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 58 666, 82 949 (1938). In sustaining however, apparently view inform public, 'force' expressions intended exercise impact does remove them reach Petitioners plainly influence conduct activities; fundamentally different function newspaper. See supra; Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 736, 1093 (1940). openly vigorously making aware Those offensive them, views doubt others. But long peaceful, need meet standards acceptability. 10 Any expression comes 'heavy presumption' against constitutional validity. Carroll President Commissioners Prinecess Anne, 393 175, 181, 89 347, 351, 21 325 (1968); Bantam Books, Incorporated Sullivan, 372 58, 70, 83 631, 639, 584 (1963). carries showing justification restraint. burden. No decisions support interest individual free criticism pamphlets warrants use injunctive power court. Designating invasion apparent here, sufficient revealed Rowan Post Office Dept., 397 728, 90 1484, 25 736 (1970), relied respondent, point; involved shown here. Among important distinctions, attempting flow information own household, public. Accordingly, issued must vacated. 11 Reversed. 12 HARLAN, dissenting. 13 deciding merits, Court, my opinion, disregards express limitation our appellate jurisdiction '(f)inal judgments decrees,' 28 Code KF62 § 1257, undermines policies behind limiting review 'rendered highest decision could had,' ibid., interferes Illinois' arrangements expeditious processing litigation state courts. 14 plain, admitted all, 'temporary' 'preliminary' County affirmed final judgment. Review preliminary injunctions classic interlocutory appeal, Congress authorized limited instances including decrees. §§ 1252, 1253; cf. 1292(a)(1). Despite seemingly absolute provision statute, holds within judicially created exception affirmance decides merits dispute practical purposes, leaving remaining proceedings lower nothing more formality. Pope Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 345 379, 382, 73 749, 751, 97 1094 (1953); Construction Laborers' Local 438 Curry, 371 542, 550—551, 531, 536—537, 514 (1963); Mills 384 214, 217—218, 86 1434, 1436, 16 484 (1966). apparent, though unstated, representation defense offer contentions, assert decided merits. Pet. Certiorari 6. 15 Even assuming latter position correct,* fit mold cases reviewed orders supreme affirming grant relief, here never contentions. If permitted return consideration contentions entry judgment, directly if judgment adverse them. Ill.Const., Article 6, 5, S.H.A.; Ill.Supp.Ct.Rules 301, 302(a), Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, chapter 110A, 302(a). That then opportunity correct errors, any, judgment; failed benefit court's issues presented. Such 'the had' particularly context procedure, places primary responsibility All appeals involving question taken court, see Ill.Supp.Ct.Rule 302(a)(2); consequently intermediate rarely occasion engage adjudication. To sure, denying motion leave rule issue presented declined so. However, strong orders. Until recently direct over appeals, simply subsequent Nichols, Civil Practice 5998 (1962 rev. vol. Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Williams & Wingersky). Although available discretion 'not favored.' Ill.Sup.Ct.Rule 318(b); 315(a). ourselves made similar resolution competing interests prompt correction courts' errors hand other. Stern E. Gressman, 4.19 (4th ed. 1969). today's decision, will surrender these matters desires interpose between subordinate highest-state-court requirement permits do. respect jurisdiction, put choice. 17 is, tempting ignore proper limitations when alternative delay today flagrant error true where, outstanding lengthy period. think intervention stage desirable—although overall docket running about 4,000 Term there surely much said giving each litigant bite apple. expressly committed III, 2, Constitution, spoken 1257. 18 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions congressional dismiss lack jurisdiction. termed considered may properly decide case. record indicate less rigorous standard issuing permanent Nor indication rests disputed might resolved differently upon further hearing. Indeed, reading leads conclusion issuance termination little Moreover, effect three years, already marked matter entirely conclude (1966); General Union, AFL—CIO * Settled provides '(i)t not, controverted facts case,' Lonergan Crucible Steel company America, 37 Ill.2d 599, 611, 229 536, 542 (1967), 'merely preserve last actual peaceable uncontested status preceded pending suit.' Consumers Digest, Consumer Magazine, Inc., 92 54, 61, 235 421, 425 (App.Ct., 1st Dist., 1968). 'It enough (the applicant) can show raises fair existence claims satisfy should preserved present until questions disposed of.' Nestor Johnson Mfg. Goldblatt, Ill. 570, 574, 723, 725 (1939). granting sound judge, reviewable abuse discretion. supra, Ill.2d, 612, N.E.2d, 542. argument before chancellor, attorney stated: 'We don't wish go provisions time. feel both sides prepare briefs preparation full injunction. And, end, just want point questions, abundantly clear, reason why Your Honor discretion, injunction.' 56.

Classification Label: 2