Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley

←

Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)

Syllabus

→

Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case which concerned freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Oral argument for this case was consolidated with Grayned v. City of Rockford, but separate opinions were issued for each. Earl Mosley had protested employment discrimination by carrying a sign on the sidewalk in front of a Chicago high school, until the city of Chicago made it illegal to do so. Although Chicago believed that its ordinance was a time, place, or manner restriction, and therefore was a constitutional law, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a content-based restriction, because it treated labor-related protests differently from other protests. Since the ordinance did not meet the higher standards for content-based restrictions, it was ruled unconstitutional.

4632117Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley — Syllabus1972

Court Documents

Opinion of the Court

Concurring Opinion: Burger

Supreme Court of the United States

408 U.S. 92

Police Department of the City of Chicago et al. v. Mosley

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

No. 70-87. Argued: January 19, 1972 --- Decided: June 26, 1972

City ordinance prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of a school, except peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute, found by the Court of Appeals to be unconstitutional because overbroad, held violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it makes an impermissible distinction between peaceful labor picketing and other peaceful picketing. Pp. 94-102.

432 F. 2d 1256, affirmed.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 102. BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., concurred in the result.

Richard L. Curry argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William R. Quinlan and Edmund Hatfield.

Harvey J. Barnett argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ronald L. Barnard and Hal M. Brown.