Carey v. Brown
447 U.S. 455 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that prohibits peaceful picketing in a public forum on the basis of the subject matter of the speech violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissible content-based discrimination.
Facts:
- An Illinois statute generally prohibited picketing before or about the residence of any person.
- The statute contained an exception allowing for 'the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute.'
- Members of a civil rights group, the Committee Against Racism, sought to protest the racial integration policies of Michael Bilandic, the Mayor of Chicago.
- On September 6, 1977, members of the Committee peacefully demonstrated on the public sidewalk in front of Mayor Bilandic's private home.
- The purpose of their demonstration was to express their views on a public issue, not a labor dispute.
- The Committee members wished to continue their picketing in residential neighborhoods but were deterred by the statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Members of the Committee Against Racism were arrested and charged in Illinois state court with unlawful residential picketing.
- They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to supervision.
- The Committee members then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against various officials, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional.
- The District Court denied all relief and upheld the statute's constitutionality.
- The Committee members, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The state officials, as appellants, then sought and were granted review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 an Illinois statute that generally prohibits picketing of residences but exempts peaceful labor picketing violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by impermissibly discriminating based on the content of the speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Illinois statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. A law that regulates expressive conduct in a public forum cannot discriminate based on the content of the speech. The statute accords preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes while restricting discussion of all other issues, making the permissibility of picketing solely dependent on the nature of the message. While the state's interest in protecting residential privacy is substantial, it cannot justify this content-based distinction. The statute is fatally undermined by its own exception, as peaceful labor picketing is just as likely to intrude upon residential tranquility as nonlabor picketing. Citing Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, the Court held that government may not grant the use of a public forum to those whose views it finds acceptable while denying it to those with less favored views.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The Illinois statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority mischaracterizes the law as being solely content-based, when it is primarily a place-based regulation. The statute prohibits picketing at exclusively residential locations but creates rational exceptions for residences that have taken on non-residential characteristics, such as being a place of business, a place for a public meeting, or a place of employment. The limited content-based exception for labor picketing is narrowly tailored to the specific context where a residence is also a place of employment, which is a rational distinction. The state has a compelling interest in protecting residential privacy, and this statute is a permissible time, place, and manner restriction that reasonably balances this interest with First Amendment rights. The appellees are not similarly situated to those allowed to picket and thus have not been denied equal protection.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes. The statute is unconstitutional. While the majority correctly invalidates the law under the Equal Protection Clause, the core issue is a direct violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The fundamental principle at stake, established in Mosley and other cases, is that a government may not discriminate in the regulation of expression based on the content of that expression. This prohibition on content-based regulation is the essence of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause is the mechanism for applying this principle.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the holding of Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, extending the prohibition on content-based discrimination to the context of residential picketing. It establishes that even a compelling state interest like protecting the sanctity of the home is insufficient to justify a law that favors one type of speech (labor) over others. The case solidifies the principle that regulations of speech in a public forum must be content-neutral, forcing legislatures to focus on permissible time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g., noise levels, hours) that apply equally to all speakers, regardless of their message. It creates a high bar for any law that attempts to selectively filter which topics are permissible for public debate.
Unlock the full brief for Carey v. Brown