Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne

←

Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne (1968)
by Abe Fortas

Syllabus

→

Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot preemptively prohibit persons from holding a public meeting, without first notifying the persons involved, and providing the persons an opportunity to argue the decision, unless moving party can show (per the equivalent of today's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65) (1) that they made efforts to give to notice, and (2) explain to the court the reasons why such notice should not be required. The National States' Rights Party won the case unanimously.

933911Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne — SyllabusAbe Fortas

Court Documents

Opinion of the Court

Concurring Opinion: Black

United States Supreme Court

393 U.S. 175

Carroll et al. v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne et al.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland

No. 6. Argued: October 21, 1968 --- Decided: November 19, 1968

Petitioners, members of the "white supremacist" National States Rights Party, held a public rally in Princess Anne, Maryland, on August 6, 1966, at which aggressively and militantly racist speeches were made to a crowd of both whites and Negroes. It was announced that the rally would be resumed the next night, August 7. That day the respondents, local officials, obtained an ex parte restraining order from the Somerset County Circuit Court, there having been no notice to or informal communication with petitioners. The order restrained petitioners for 10 days from holding rallies "which will tend to disturb and endanger the citizens of the County," and the August 7 rally was not held. After trial 10 days later, the Circuit Court issued another injunction, extending the effect of the earlier order for 10 months. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the 10-day order, but reversed the 10-month order, holding that "the period of time was unreasonable."

Held:

1. The case is not moot. The Maryland Court of Appeals' approval of the 10-day order continues to play a role in the response of local officials to petitioners' efforts to continue their activities in the county. Pp. 178-179.

2. The 10-day restraining order must be set aside because, where the principles guaranteed by the First Amendment and applicable to the States by the Fourteenth are involved, there is no place for such ex parte order, issued without formal or informal notice to petitioners, where no showing is made that it is impossible to serve or notify the opposing parties and to give them an opportunity to participate in an adversary proceeding. Pp. 179-185.

Eleanor Holmes Norton and William H. Zinman argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf and Leon Friedman.

S. Leonard Rottman and Alexander G. Jones argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland.

Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse