Court Opinion

ID: 9423939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:09:41.434251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:47.234180
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring in the result.
Two factors in this case run afoul of well-established constitutional principles, and clearly call for reversal. These are the ambulatory sweep of the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940), and Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 186 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment), and the possibility that as the case went to the jury the convictions may have rested on a constitutionally impermissible ground. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931).
I agree with the concurring opinion of my Brother Black on both of these scores, and to that extent join in it.