Brown v. Louisiana
383 US 131, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2845, 15 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A peaceful, orderly, and silent demonstration within a public facility, conducted to protest unconstitutional segregation, is a form of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A state cannot apply a general breach-of-the-peace statute to punish such conduct where there is no evidence of disruption, violence, or intent to cause a public disturbance.
Facts:
- The Audubon Regional Library in Clinton, Louisiana, operated on a segregated basis, using separate bookmobiles for Black and white patrons and stamping registration cards with the word 'Negro'.
- Five young Black men, including petitioner Brown, entered the adult reading room of the library, a facility they were not permitted to use.
- Brown requested the book 'The Story of the Negro'.
- An assistant librarian, Mrs. Reeves, informed Brown that the library did not have the book but that she could order it and have it delivered to him via the 'Blue Bookmobile' designated for Black patrons.
- Following this interaction, Brown sat down in a chair while his four companions stood near him in silence.
- The men remained quietly in the library for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, not leaving when asked by Mrs. Reeves and the regional librarian, Mrs. Perkins.
- The local sheriff, having been informed that a 'sit-in' might occur, arrived and, after the men refused his order to leave, arrested them.
- The petitioners' conduct was at all times quiet, orderly, and peaceful, and there were no other patrons in the library to be disturbed.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were charged in a Louisiana trial court with violating the state's breach of the peace statute.
- Following a trial, all five petitioners were found guilty.
- Petitioner Brown was sentenced to pay a $150 fine and costs or serve 90 days in jail; his companions received lesser sentences.
- As Louisiana law did not provide for an appeal of these convictions, petitioners sought discretionary review from the Louisiana Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the petitioners' application for review.
- The petitioners then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the application of Louisiana's breach of the peace statute to convict peaceful, silent protestors for remaining in a segregated public library, after being ordered to leave, violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and petition?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fortas
Yes, the application of the statute violates the petitioners' constitutional rights. The right to peacefully protest unconstitutional conditions in a public facility is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and this protection is not limited to verbal expression but extends to symbolic acts like a silent, orderly sit-in. There was no evidence whatsoever that the petitioners intended to provoke a breach of the peace or that their quiet presence created circumstances where a breach might be occasioned. Their conduct was peaceful and their presence in the public library was lawful; therefore, the statute was unconstitutionally applied to terminate a reasonable and limited exercise of their right to protest segregation.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, the convictions must be reversed because the Louisiana breach of the peace statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face, as held in Cox v. Louisiana. The statute's definition of 'breach of the peace'—interpreted by Louisiana courts as anything that might 'agitate' or 'disquiet'—sweeps within its scope constitutionally protected activities like free speech and assembly. This overbreadth is a fatal flaw whether the statute is applied to conduct on a public street or, as here, in a public building.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the convictions should be reversed based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners were making a normal and authorized use of a public library, as their brief, quiet sojourn did not violate any specific rule or regulation. The record strongly suggests they were asked to leave and subsequently arrested solely because they were Black men in a segregated facility. This discriminatory enforcement of the law, where white citizens would not have been treated similarly, is a denial of equal protection.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No, the application of the statute was constitutional. The First Amendment does not grant individuals the right to protest whenever and wherever they please, especially within public buildings like libraries that are dedicated to specific purposes requiring quiet and order. Petitioners were not using the library for its intended purpose; they were staging a demonstration. When authorized officials ordered them to leave, their refusal constituted a disruption of the library's function and a violation of a valid state law aimed at protecting public property for its designated use.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the understanding of First Amendment protections for non-verbal, symbolic protest during the Civil Rights era. It established that peaceful sit-ins in public places are a form of protected expression, limiting the ability of states to use vague breach-of-the-peace statutes to suppress dissent. The decision reinforces the principle that orderly protest cannot be criminalized based on the potential discomfort or disagreement of others. It forces courts to look for actual evidence of disturbance or intent to disturb, rather than simply deferring to an officer's order to disperse in the context of a peaceful demonstration against segregation.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Louisiana