Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be constitutionally convicted for violating a permit ordinance that, as written and applied at the time of the conduct, acted as an unconstitutional prior restraint by vesting city officials with virtually absolute and unbridled discretion, even if a state court later gives the ordinance a narrow and constitutional construction.
Facts:
- On Good Friday, April 12, 1963, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, a minister, led 52 African Americans in a peaceful march in Birmingham, Alabama.
- The purpose of the march was to protest the denial of civil rights to Black citizens in the city.
- The group marched in an orderly fashion on the sidewalks for four blocks and did not obstruct pedestrians or vehicle traffic.
- Prior to the march, Shuttlesworth's representative requested a parade permit from Commissioner Eugene 'Bull' Connor, the official in charge.
- Commissioner Connor denied the request, stating, 'No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham, Alabama to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail.'
- Shuttlesworth then sent a telegram directly to Commissioner Connor requesting a permit, which was again refused with a warning not to start any picketing.
- The group proceeded with the march without a permit and were subsequently arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred L. Shuttlesworth was convicted in the Birmingham trial court for violating the city's parade ordinance, § 1159.
- Shuttlesworth, as appellant, appealed to the Alabama Court of Appeals, which reversed the conviction.
- The City of Birmingham, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the intermediate appellate court, narrowly construed the ordinance, and reinstated Shuttlesworth's conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 conviction for parading without a permit violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when the underlying ordinance, as written and applied at the time of the march, gave city officials unbridled discretion to grant or deny permits, even if the state's highest court later construes the ordinance narrowly to be constitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The conviction violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the ordinance under which the petitioner was convicted was unconstitutional as written and applied at the time of the march. The Birmingham ordinance on its face conferred 'virtually unbridled and absolute power' on the City Commission to deny permits based on vague standards like 'public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience.' Such a law subjecting First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional. While the Alabama Supreme Court later performed 'a remarkable job of plastic surgery' by narrowly construing the ordinance to be constitutional, this occurred four years after the conviction. At the time of the march, it would have taken 'extraordinary clairvoyance' for Shuttlesworth to know of this future interpretation. Evidence from the related case of Walker v. Birmingham confirms that city officials applied the ordinance to mean exactly what it said, making it clear that under no circumstances would Shuttlesworth's group be permitted to demonstrate. Therefore, the ordinance was administered so as 'to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly,' rendering the conviction under it invalid.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The conviction must be reversed because the city and state failed to provide sufficiently expedited procedures for obtaining a permit or for seeking judicial review of a denial. When fundamental First Amendment rights are at stake, a person cannot be required to invoke administrative and judicial remedies that are so slow-moving as to be ineffective. Given that timing is of the essence in political protests, the lack of any process for a prompt decision on the permit application or for speedy court review left Shuttlesworth with no viable way to obtain a permit by the scheduled date. Because the state did not provide an adequate and timely remedy to protect his constitutional rights, Shuttlesworth cannot be punished for proceeding with the peaceful demonstration.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a law which is unconstitutional on its face as a prior restraint cannot be saved by a later judicial reinterpretation to uphold a conviction that occurred before that reinterpretation. It establishes that defendants are entitled to assess the constitutionality of a law as it is written and administered at the time of their actions. The case serves as a crucial check on the power of local governments to use vague licensing schemes to suppress disfavored speech, emphasizing that the practical application of a law by officials is as important as its text when evaluating its constitutionality as-applied.
Unlock the full brief for Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham