Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne
393 U.S. 175, 21 L. Ed. 2d 325, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2948 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An ex parte temporary restraining order that curtails First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly is unconstitutional where there is no showing that it was impossible to serve or notify the opposing parties and give them an opportunity to participate in an adversary proceeding.
Facts:
- Petitioners, members of the 'National States Rights Party,' a white supremacist organization, held a public rally in Princess Anne, Maryland on August 6, 1966.
- The speeches at the rally were aggressively racist, targeting Black people and Jews, and were amplified so they could be heard for several blocks.
- The crowd grew to about 150 people, of whom approximately 25% were Black, and the atmosphere became tense.
- At the conclusion of the rally, petitioners announced they would hold another rally at the same location the following night, August 7.
Procedural Posture:
- Officials of Princess Anne and Somerset County applied for a restraining order in the Circuit Court for Somerset County, a state trial court.
- The trial court granted an ex parte 10-day temporary restraining order prohibiting petitioners from holding rallies.
- Following a hearing 10 days later, the trial court issued an injunction extending the restraint for 10 months.
- Petitioners appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the 10-day order but reversed the 10-month injunction.
- Petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the affirmed 10-day order.
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 a 10-day ex parte temporary restraining order, issued without notice to the petitioners, that prohibits them from holding a public rally, violate the procedural safeguards required by the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Fortas
Yes, the 10-day ex parte order violates the First Amendment. Any system of prior restraint on expression bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, and an injunction curtailing First Amendment rights cannot be issued without notice and an adversary hearing, except in the most extraordinary circumstances where it is impossible to notify the opposing party. The Court reasoned that an adversary proceeding is a fundamental instrument for judicial judgment, especially in the sensitive First Amendment area where facts are difficult to ascertain and value judgments are delicate. Without the participation of both sides, there is insufficient assurance of the balanced analysis required to make a proper determination and to tailor an order that is narrowly drawn to the specific needs of the case. The record here showed no reason why the petitioners, who were in town and planning a rally for that very evening, could not have been notified. The availability of a post-issuance hearing did not cure the constitutional infirmity of having already aborted the scheduled rally without due process.
Dissent - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the order is unconstitutional. While joining the Court's opinion, Justice Douglas noted his adherence to his more absolutist views expressed in previous dissents and concurrences, specifically his dissent in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown and his concurrence in Freedman v. Maryland, which argued against the constitutionality of almost any form of prior restraint on speech.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical procedural due process requirement for any governmental attempt to impose a prior restraint on speech. By invalidating the ex parte injunction, the Court affirmed that First Amendment rights are so fundamental that they cannot be curtailed without, at a minimum, an opportunity for an adversary hearing. This holding significantly limits the ability of authorities to preemptively shut down controversial or unpopular speech based on a one-sided presentation of facts. The decision forces courts to engage with both parties before issuing injunctions against expressive activities, thereby ensuring a more robust and careful consideration of the constitutional rights at stake.
