Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance prohibiting noise that disrupts or tends to disrupt a school session is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction if it is narrowly tailored to the government's compelling interest in undisrupted education and is not impermissibly vague or overbroad.
Facts:
- African American students at West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois presented grievances to school administrators, but the principal took no action on key complaints.
- In response, on April 25, 1969, approximately 200 people, including students, family members, and Richard Grayned, whose siblings attended the school, gathered for a demonstration.
- The group marched on a public sidewalk about 100 feet from the school building while school was in session.
- Demonstrators carried signs with messages such as “Black cheerleaders to cheer too” and “Equal rights, Negro counselors.”
- Some participants made the “power to the people” sign with upraised, clenched fists.
- The evidence regarding the level of noise and disruption was contradictory, with government witnesses claiming significant disruption to classes and defense witnesses claiming the demonstration was quiet and orderly.
- After warning the demonstrators, police arrested 40 people, including Grayned.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Grayned was tried and convicted in an Illinois trial court for violating the City of Rockford's 'antipicketing' and 'antinoise' ordinances.
- A fine of $25 was imposed for each violation.
- Grayned appealed his convictions directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois, arguing that both ordinances were unconstitutional on their face.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court, affirmed the convictions, holding that both ordinances were constitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a municipal antinoise ordinance, which prohibits any person on grounds adjacent to a school in session from willfully making a noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the school's peace or good order, unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, the antinoise ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Court first held that the city's separate antipicketing ordinance, which banned all non-labor picketing within 150 feet of a school, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause for the reasons stated in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley. Regarding the antinoise ordinance, the Court found it was not void for vagueness because, when read in context, it provides fair notice of what is prohibited. The ordinance is specifically aimed at protecting schools during session, and the phrase 'tends to disturb' is construed to mean an 'actual or imminent' interference with normal school activities. It is not overbroad because it is a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation narrowly tailored to Rockford's compelling interest in preventing disruption of education. Citing Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court affirmed that expressive activity near a school may be prohibited if it 'materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder,' and this ordinance punishes only such disruptive conduct, not peaceful, non-disruptive protest.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the conviction under the antinoise ordinance should be reversed. The dissent agrees with striking down the antipicketing ordinance but argues the antinoise ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to Grayned's conduct. The evidence showed that Grayned himself marched quietly and did not make any noise. The demonstration was an orderly expression of views on a matter of public concern—racial inequality—which is core First Amendment activity. Any disruption was caused by the underlying racial conflict and the police using loudspeakers, not by the peaceful demonstrators. Therefore, convicting Grayned under this ordinance abridges his fundamental right to free speech and assembly.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of First Amendment principles to the special environment of a school. It clarifies that the 'material and substantial disruption' standard from Tinker, which originally applied to student speech inside a school, also governs the regulation of expressive activity on public property adjacent to a school. Grayned establishes that while sidewalks are traditional public forums, the government has a compelling interest in maintaining an environment conducive to education, allowing for reasonable and clearly defined time, place, and manner restrictions. The decision provides a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of laws that balance free speech rights with the need for order in sensitive locations like schools and courthouses.
