Collin v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
578 F.2d 1197 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment's protection of free speech prohibits the government from restricting expression based on its message, ideas, or content, even if that expression is profoundly offensive and causes emotional distress to its audience, unless it falls into a narrowly defined unprotected category like incitement to imminent violence.

Facts:

The National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), led by Frank Collin, is a political group whose members wear Nazi-style uniforms, display the swastika, and espouse racist and anti-Semitic beliefs.
The NSPA announced plans for a peaceful, 30-minute demonstration on a public sidewalk in front of the Village Hall in Skokie, Illinois.
The Village of Skokie has a large Jewish population, including several thousand survivors of the Nazi Holocaust.
In response to the NSPA's planned demonstration, the Village of Skokie enacted three ordinances.
Ordinance 994 required groups of more than 50 people to obtain a permit, which necessitated acquiring $300,000 in public liability insurance and $50,000 in property damage insurance.
Ordinance 994 also forbade the issuance of a permit if the assembly would incite hatred against a group based on religious or racial affiliation.
Ordinance 995 criminalized the dissemination of materials, including symbolic clothing, that promote or incite hatred based on race, national origin, or religion.
Ordinance 996 prohibited members of political parties from demonstrating while wearing military-style uniforms.

Procedural Posture:

The Village of Skokie first obtained a preliminary injunction in state court to prohibit the NSPA's planned demonstration.
After state courts denied a stay of the injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay, and the injunction was ultimately reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court.
The NSPA applied to the Village for a permit under the new ordinances, and the application was denied.
Frank Collin and the NSPA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Village of Skokie, seeking to have the three ordinances declared unconstitutional.
The district court ruled in favor of the NSPA, finding the ordinances unconstitutional and granting an injunction against their enforcement.
The Village of Skokie appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do village ordinances prohibiting the dissemination of materials that incite racial hatred, forbidding public demonstrations by political parties in military-style uniforms, and requiring large insurance policies for public assemblies violate the First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly?

Opinions:

Majority - Pell

Yes, the village ordinances violate the First Amendment. A government cannot restrict expression because of its message, ideas, or content, as this constitutes a presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint. The NSPA's proposed demonstration, including the display of swastikas and uniforms, is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that this speech does not fall into any of the narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection, such as obscenity or 'fighting words,' because the Village did not argue that the march would incite imminent violence. The court distinguished or questioned the continued validity of Beauharnais v. Illinois, which allowed for the prohibition of group libel, on the grounds that its rationale was tied to preventing violence and that the law of libel has been significantly constitutionalized since it was decided. Furthermore, the argument that the march would inflict 'psychic trauma' on Skokie's residents, particularly Holocaust survivors, is not a constitutionally permissible basis for abridging speech, as there is no 'captive audience' in a public space where viewers can simply avert their eyes.

Concurring - Wood

Yes, the ordinances are unconstitutional. Judge Wood agreed with the majority's analysis and added that the ordinances were also unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as criminal statutes. He emphasized that protecting free speech does not compel anyone to listen or believe, and that creating an exception to the First Amendment for this specific, persuasive circumstance would set a dangerous and unmanageable precedent.

Dissenting - Sprecher

No, at least with respect to the insurance ordinance, which is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation. The ordinance's insurance requirement is a facially neutral manner restriction that furthers a substantial governmental interest in protecting citizens and property, unrelated to the suppression of expression. The dissent argued that the NSPA's difficulty in obtaining insurance demonstrated the reasonableness of the requirement, as it reflected the real risk of damage their march posed. The dissenting opinion also questioned whether the NSPA's proposed conduct, in the unique context of a village with thousands of Holocaust survivors, should even be considered protected speech, suggesting it may fall into unprotected categories like 'fighting words' under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire or group libel under Beauharnais v. Illinois.

Analysis:

This case stands as a landmark decision affirming the principle of content neutrality under the First Amendment. It establishes that speech cannot be banned simply because its content is offensive, hateful, or emotionally distressing to a community, even a community with unique sensitivities like Skokie's Holocaust survivors. The ruling reinforces the high constitutional barrier against prior restraints and clarifies that the 'fighting words' doctrine requires a likelihood of imminent violence, not just offense or anger. By protecting one of the most reviled forms of speech, the decision powerfully illustrates the American legal commitment to protecting unpopular minority viewpoints from suppression by the majority.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Collin v. Smith (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"