Cox v. New Hampshire
312 U.S. 569 (1941)
Rule of Law:
A state may impose reasonable, content-neutral, and non-discriminatory time, place, and manner restrictions on speech and assembly in public forums, such as requiring a permit and a fee for a parade, to ensure public safety and order.
Facts:
- Willis Cox and other Jehovah's Witnesses gathered at a hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, to conduct an 'information march'.
- The group was divided into four or five smaller groups of about fifteen to twenty people each.
- The groups marched in single-file formation on the sidewalks in the city's business district on a Saturday evening.
- Each participant carried a staff with a sign, with messages such as 'Religion is a Snare and a Racket' and 'Serve God and Christ the King'.
- The marchers also distributed leaflets advertising a future public meeting.
- The marchers did not apply for a permit, as required by a New Hampshire statute for any 'parade or procession' on a public street.
- The march interfered with normal sidewalk travel on a busy night, though no technical breach of the peace occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Willis Cox and several other Jehovah’s Witnesses were convicted in the municipal court of Manchester, New Hampshire, for violating a state statute.
- Appellants appealed to the Superior Court for a trial de novo.
- A jury in the Superior Court found the appellants guilty.
- Appellants appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the convictions.
- Appellants appealed the state supreme court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 state statute requiring a license and fee for parades or processions on public streets violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments if the licensing authority's discretion is limited to neutral considerations of time, place, and manner for the purpose of maintaining public convenience and order?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No. The state statute does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is a reasonable, non-discriminatory regulation of the time, place, and manner of conduct on public streets, not an infringement on the content of speech. The Constitution guarantees civil liberties within the context of an organized society that requires public order. The authority of a municipality to regulate its streets to ensure safety and convenience is a traditional and necessary exercise of police power. The New Hampshire Supreme Court construed the statute narrowly, holding that the licensing board does not have unfettered discretion to grant or deny permits. Instead, its authority is limited to considerations of time, place, and manner to conserve public convenience, prevent overlapping events, and minimize disorder. The statute is not aimed at the content of speech but at the conduct of marching in formation. The variable license fee is also constitutional, as it is not a revenue tax but a reasonable charge adjusted to meet the administrative and policing costs associated with managing the event. This regulatory scheme is unlike those struck down in prior cases like Lovell v. Griffin or Hague v. CIO, which gave officials broad and arbitrary censorship powers.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the constitutional validity of content-neutral 'time, place, and manner' regulations on First Amendment activities in public forums. The Court clarified that the rights of free speech and assembly are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions aimed at maintaining public order and safety. By upholding the permit scheme as interpreted by the state court, the decision provides a crucial framework for municipalities to balance First Amendment rights with their responsibility to manage public spaces. This precedent continues to guide courts in assessing the constitutionality of permit requirements, noise ordinances, and other regulations affecting protests and public gatherings.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"