Chapter 11: Constraints of Time, Place, and Manner

Question 1

Davis v. Massachusetts

Answer 1

Facts: Davis is arrested for preaching in Boston Common without a permit

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the state and upholds the permitting scheme

Significance: SCOTUS uses a property ownership argument to grant the government the right to regulate speech on its property in the same way a private property owner could

Question 2

Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)

Answer 2

Facts: Hague, the mayor of Jersey City prohibits groups from conducting public meetings in Jersey City parks. The CIO challenges the rule.

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the CIO arguing that throughout history, the US has recognized certain areas, such as parks, as public meeting places open for assembly and debate

Significance: SCOTUS establishes that certain spaces must remain open to the public for expression. The use of these spaces can be regulated but not prohibited.

Know the quote about certain places historically being open to the public

Question 3

Schneider v. State

Answer 3

Facts: 4 cities try to prohibit handbill distribution on public streets to reduce litter

Decision: SCOTUS strikes down the ordinances

Significance: Establishes that while expression in the streets can be regulated, it can not be fully banned

Question 4

Cox v. New Hampshire

Answer 4

Facts: Cox (Jehovah’s Witness) holds a march without a permit on a public street

Decision: SCOTUS sides with NH because their permitting scheme and fee were non-discretionary/non-discriminatory

Significance: Provides an example of how public spaces can be constitutionally regulated by the government

Question 5

Jamison v. Texas

Answer 5

Facts: Jamison (Jehovah’s Witness) is convicted for distributing religious leaflets in Dallas. Dallas uses Davis v. Massachusetts to defend the prohibition

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Jamison

Significance: SCOTUS officially rejects Davis v. Massachusetts but again emphasizes that regulations are permissible

Question 6

Grayned v. Rockford

Answer 6

Facts: Rockford, IL places a ban on any noise or diversion that disrupts school activities. Grayned is arrested for violating the ordinances during a protest about racial representation

Decision: SCOTUS upholds the ordinance arguing that the expression was incompatible with the normal activity of that particular place at that particular time

Significance: SCOTUS establishes the Compatible Use Rule, which is used to decide where public expression can occur

Question 7

Edwards v. South Carolina

Answer 7

SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to uphold protesters’ right to peacefully assemble on the grounds of the South Carolina capital building.

Reasoning: The protest did not inhibit the activity of legislators in the capital building

Question 8

United States v. Grace

Answer 8

SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to uphold protesters’ right to peacefully assemble on the sidewalks in front of the US Supreme Court

Reasoning: Protests do no not disrupt Supreme Court proceedings

Question 9

Adderley v. Florida

Answer 9

SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prevent protesters from assembling on the grounds of a jail

Reasoning: large crowds pose a threat to security and thus are incompatible with the purpose of a jail

Question 10

Cameron v. Johnson

Answer 10

SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prevent protesters from blocking entrances to government property

Reasoning: this expression is incompatible with the daily flow of people in and out of government buildings

Question 11

Greer v. Spock

Answer 11

SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prohibit partisan political expressions on military bases.

Reasoning: Military bases are designed to train soldiers and political debate might interfere with this goal.

Question 12

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association

Answer 12

Facts: PEA wins an election that gives them exclusive rights to the interschool mail system and teacher mailboxes. PLEA sues, arguing that the mailboxes are a public forum.

Decision: SCOTUS sides with PEA arguing that the mailboxes are considered a non-public forum

Significance:
The Three-Part Public Forum Rule
1. Quintessential/All-Purpose Public Forum: places that have traditionally been devoted to assembly and debate. The government can only create time, place, and manner restrictions here.
2. Limited Purpose Public Forum: government-owned property that the state has explicitly opened for public use. If opened, these forums must be open to everybody; discrimination is not allowed.
3. Non-Public Forums: government property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication. No first amendment guarantees exist here.

Question 13

International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee

Answer 13

Facts: International Society for Krishna Consciousness challenges New York and New Jersey bans on the solicitation of money and distribution of literature in airports

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the government

Significance: The Three Part Public Forum rule is used to declare that airports are non-public forums and thus do not have to guarantee 1st amendment protections to visitors

Question 14

Boos v. Barry

Answer 14

Facts: Boos challenges a DC law that prohibits the display of any sign within 500 ft of a country’s embassy that is critical of that country

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Boos but upholds the section of the law that allows police to disperse a crowd that threatens the security or peace of the embassy

Significance: SCOTUS uses the Three Part Public Forum rule to decide that the streets around the embassy are a quintessential public forum and therefore content-based restrictions are not permissible there

Question 15

Collin v. Smith

Answer 15

Facts: Skokie (Jewish Community) announces 3 new ordinances after the American Nazi Party makes plans to demonstrate there
1. Permit applicants must secure $350,000 in insurance coverage
2. Protesters can’t disseminate racist or religiously hateful material
3. Protesters can’t wear military-style uniforms

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Collin (Nazi) and rules that all three ordinances are unconstitutional

Significance: Example of unprotected restrictions of speech in a public forum

Question 16

Forsyth Co. Georgia v. Nationalist Movement

Answer 16

Facts: Under an ordinance that requires demonstraters to pay a fee <$1000 per day, Forsyth imposes a $100 fee on the Nationalist Movement group that wanted to march in Forsyth

Decision: SCOTUS rules that the ordinance is unconstitutional because the fee was discretionary

Significance: Discretionary restrictions on speech are not constitutional

Question 17

Thomas v. Chicago Park

Answer 17

Facts: Windy City Hemp Development challenges the Chicago permitting scheme after being denied a license to use the park

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Chicago because the licensing process was non-discriminatory, non-discretionary, speedy, and allowed for appeals.

Significance: Demonstrates how speech in a public forum can constitutionally be restricted

Question 18

Ladue v. Gilleo

Answer 18

Facts: Gilleo challenges a Ladue ordinance that prohibits most signs on residential property

Decision: SCOTUS strikes down the ordinance because it is overbroad

Significance: The government cannot regulate the speech of a private citizen on their own property

Question 19

Marsh v. Alabama

Answer 19

Facts: Marsh (Jehova’s Witness) is arrested in Chickasaw (company town) for distributing leaflets

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Marsh

Significance: Although company towns are privately owned, they must follow the same rules as normal towns. Thus, quintessential public forums cannot be completely closed to free speech.

Question 20

Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley

Answer 20

Facts: Logan Valley mall obtained a court order that prevented the employees union from protesting on its property. The union challenged the order.

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the union

Significance: Although the mall was privately owned, it functioned as a “business block” which meant that protesters had the right to access the parking lots/sidewalks around it.

Question 21

Lloyd Corp v. Tanner

Answer 21

Facts: Anti-war protesters challenge an order from mall security to leave the premises

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the mall because the mall does not function like a town (as seen in Marsh)

Significance: Private property owners have the right to limit the speech of non-associated individuals and groups on their property

Question 22

Hudgens v. NLRB

Answer 22

Facts: protesters try to picket a specific store inside a mall

Decision: SCOTUS rules in favor of Hudgens (the mall owner)

Significance: Logan Valley is overturned. Property owners are given the right to control all expressions on their property.

Question 23

West Virginia v. Barnett

Answer 23

Facts: Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the flag in school

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Barnett

Significance: Saluting the flag is a form of symbolic speech that cannot be compelled

Question 24

United States v. O’Brien

Answer 24

Facts: O’Brien is arrested for burning his draft card in a symbolic anti-war gesture

Decision: SCOTUS sides with the government

Significance: SCOTUS establishes that speech protections can be violated if the government has a substantial interest in preventing its associated action

O’Brien Test for Speech Plus
1. Is the regulation within the government’s authority
2. Does it further a substantial government interest?
3. Is the interest unrelated to free expression?
4. Is the restriction greater than necessary?

Question 25

Texas v. Johnson

Answer 25

Facts: Johnson burns a flag and is convicted under a Texas law that prevents desecrating a sacred object

Decision: SCOTUS sides with Johnson arguing that it is not up to the government to decide what is and isn’t a sacred object

Significance: Flag burning is upheld as a constitutional form of speech plus

Question 26

United States v. Eichmann

Answer 26

Facts: Eichman burns a flag on the steps of the capital in protest of the Flag Protection Act of 1989

Decision: SCOTUS rules that the Flag Protection Act is Unconstitutional

Significance: SCOTUS reinforces its decision that flag burning is a constitutional form of speech plus