National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Supreme Court of United States
432 U.S. 43 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a state imposes a prior restraint on First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, which include either immediate appellate review or a stay of the restrictive order pending a full appeal.

Facts:

The National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a neo-Nazi group, planned to conduct a demonstration in the Village of Skokie, Illinois.
The Village of Skokie had a large population of Jewish residents, including a significant number of Holocaust survivors.
The NSPA's planned demonstration included its members marching in uniform, displaying the swastika, and distributing pamphlets.
The content of the NSPA's pamphlets and displayed materials was intended to promote their political ideology, which included inciting hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry.

Procedural Posture:

The Circuit Court of Cook County, a state trial court, entered an injunction against the National Socialist Party of America (petitioners).
Petitioners applied for a stay of the injunction pending appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, an intermediate appellate court.
The Illinois Appellate Court denied the application for a stay.
Petitioners then filed a petition for a stay and a request for an expedited appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
The Illinois Supreme Court denied both the stay and the request for an expedited appeal.
Petitioners then applied to the United States Supreme Court for a stay.

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's denial of a stay of an injunction against political speech, pending a potentially lengthy appellate review process, violate the procedural safeguards required by the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A state's denial of a stay pending appeal, where immediate appellate review is unavailable, unconstitutionally infringes on the First Amendment rights of those enjoined. If a state seeks to impose a prior restraint on speech, it bears a heavy burden to provide strict procedural safeguards. These safeguards must include either an immediate appeal or a stay of the injunction pending appeal, as a normal appellate process, which can take a year or more, would effectively deny the exercise of free speech rights for an extended period. The Illinois Supreme Court's order denying a stay is treated as a reviewable 'final judgment' under the collateral order doctrine because it finally determines a claimed right that is separate from, and collateral to, the merits of the underlying case.

Dissenting - Rehnquist

No, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to decide this issue at this time. The refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to grant a stay is not a 'final judgment' as required for Supreme Court review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The state's highest court has not decided the merits of the petitioners' First Amendment claim; it has only made a discretionary procedural ruling not to stay a lower court's injunction. By intervening at this stage, the Court is improperly disregarding the jurisdictional limitations set by Congress and interfering with the state appellate process before it has had a chance to resolve the constitutional issues.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that procedural safeguards are a critical component of First Amendment protections against prior restraints. It establishes that the harm of being unconstitutionally silenced for the duration of a lengthy appeal is itself a First Amendment injury that courts must prevent. By requiring states to provide either an immediate appeal or a stay, the Court pressures state judicial systems to expedite First Amendment cases or refrain from imposing injunctions. This ruling effectively prevents the government from using procedural delays as a tool to suppress disfavored speech.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)

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

Premium Feature