Cox v. Louisiana (Cox II)
379 U.S. 559 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may not convict an individual for violating a statute prohibiting demonstrations "near" a courthouse when state officials have explicitly authorized the demonstration at the specific location in question, as such a conviction would constitute an "indefensible sort of entrapment" that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- B.R. Cox led a peaceful demonstration of approximately 2,000 students in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
- The purpose of the demonstration was to protest the previous day's arrest of 23 other students.
- The demonstration took place on the public sidewalk across the street from the East Baton Rouge Parish Courthouse, where the arrested students were being held.
- The location of the protest was approximately 101 feet from the courthouse steps.
- Upon arriving, Cox was met by the Police Chief and other officials, who informed him that the demonstration must be confined to the sidewalk on the west side of the street, across from the courthouse.
- Police officials then blocked off the street and rerouted traffic, effectively sanctioning the location.
- After the demonstration had been proceeding peacefully, the Sheriff ordered the crowd to disperse, stating that their actions constituted a disturbance of the peace.
Procedural Posture:
- Cox was tried and convicted in a Louisiana state trial court for violating a state statute prohibiting picketing or parading near a courthouse.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the conviction.
- Cox appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction to review the case.
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 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevent a state from convicting a person for demonstrating "near" a courthouse, in violation of a state statute, when police officials on the scene explicitly permitted the demonstration to take place at that specific location?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Goldberg
Yes. A conviction under these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause. While the Louisiana statute prohibiting picketing near a courthouse is facially constitutional as a valid, narrowly drawn regulation to protect the judicial system, its application here was impermissible. The word "near" is imprecise and requires on-the-spot administrative interpretation by law enforcement. The highest police officials of the city affirmatively told Cox that he could hold the demonstration at the specified location 101 feet from the courthouse. To subsequently convict Cox for demonstrating where he was told he could amounts to an 'indefensible sort of entrapment,' as established in Raley v. Ohio. The final dispersal order was based on an erroneous conclusion that a breach of the peace was occurring, not on the location of the protest, and thus did not negate the initial grant of permission.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The conviction should be affirmed because the statute is constitutional and the evidence clearly shows it was violated. The demonstration's undeniable purpose was to influence the judge and court officials, falling squarely within the statute's prohibitions. The idea that a police chief can authorize the violation of a state's criminal laws is untenable. Furthermore, any permission granted was revoked when the sheriff ordered the crowd to disperse and Cox defied the order. Protecting the judicial process from the intimidating pressure of street demonstrations is paramount, and the Court's reversal undermines this crucial function of government.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The conviction should be upheld because the majority's entrapment theory is unsupported by the record. The police chief's acquiescence was not a calm administrative determination but a reaction to an accomplished, potentially violent situation, made to avoid a riot. A law enforcement official cannot forgive a breach of criminal law, especially under duress. The demonstration was clearly 'near' the courthouse, creating a disturbance within sight and hearing of court officials. Reversing the conviction on this basis condones mobocracy and undermines the principle of freedom under law.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
No. The conviction should be sustained. This opinion agrees with Part III of Justice Black's dissent, which argues that the statute is constitutional and was clearly violated by the appellant's conduct.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant due process protection known as 'entrapment by estoppel' or reliance on official assurances. While affirming the state's power to protect its judicial process through narrowly tailored statutes, the Court holds that this power is not absolute. The government cannot prosecute an individual for conduct that its own agents have explicitly permitted, especially when interpreting an ambiguous statutory term like 'near.' This decision places a crucial check on arbitrary enforcement and reinforces the principle of fair warning, requiring that citizens not be punished for reasonably relying on the guidance of law enforcement officials.
Unlock the full brief for Cox v. Louisiana (Cox II)