United States v. Grace
461 U.S. 171 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute that prohibits the display of any flag, banner, or device on the public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court building is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, as these sidewalks are traditional public forums.
Facts:
- In May 1978, Thaddeus Zywicki stood on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building and distributed leaflets regarding the removal of unfit judges.
- A Supreme Court police officer informed Zywicki that his conduct was prohibited by federal law, and Zywicki left the premises.
- In January and February of 1980, Zywicki returned on two separate occasions to the same sidewalk to distribute pamphlets concerning oppression in Central America and Guatemala, and was again told by police to leave or face arrest.
- On March 17, 1980, Mary Grace stood on the public sidewalk in front of the Court and displayed a sign inscribed with the verbatim text of the First Amendment.
- A Supreme Court police officer approached Grace, informed her that her conduct was illegal under federal law, and told her she would be arrested if she did not cease.
- After being threatened with arrest, Grace left the Supreme Court grounds.
Procedural Posture:
- Thaddeus Zywicki and Mary Grace filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that 40 U.S.C. § 13k was unconstitutional.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Zywicki and Grace, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding the dismissal erroneous, and proceeded to rule on the merits, holding that § 13k was unconstitutional on its face.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals 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 40 U.S.C. § 13k, which prohibits the display of any flag, banner, or device on the grounds of the United States Supreme Court, violate the First Amendment as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Court building?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, 40 U.S.C. § 13k violates the First Amendment as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court building. The sidewalks bordering the Court's property are indistinguishable from other public sidewalks and are traditional public forums, where the government's ability to restrict expressive activity is sharply limited. The government cannot transform the character of public forum property simply by including it within a statutory definition of a nonpublic forum. The statute's total ban on displaying flags, banners, or devices on these sidewalks is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The government's asserted interests in maintaining order and preserving the appearance of judicial integrity are insufficient to justify this broad prohibition on speech in a traditional public forum.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, but the Court's holding is too narrow; the statute should be held unconstitutional on its face, not merely as applied to the sidewalks. Citizens do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter public places, including the Supreme Court building and grounds, so long as their expression is not incompatible with the primary activity of that place. The statute is not a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation because it imposes a blanket prohibition on a wide range of expressive conduct across the entire premises at all times. By failing to strike down the statute in its entirety, the majority leaves in place a law that will continue to have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected expression.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
The constitutional question should not have been reached, as the statute does not apply to the appellees' conduct. Zywicki's act of distributing leaflets does not constitute the 'display' of a 'flag, banner, or device' under a reasonable construction of the statute. Similarly, Grace's sign, while a 'device,' was not 'designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement,' as the text of the First Amendment is not associated with any particular group. As a matter of judicial restraint, the Court should have resolved the case on these non-constitutional, statutory grounds rather than adjudicating a major First Amendment question.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the public forum doctrine by clarifying that the government cannot eliminate the public forum status of traditional venues for speech, like sidewalks, merely by legislative definition. It establishes that sidewalks adjacent to sensitive government buildings remain protected forums for expression, limiting the government's power to create broad speech-free zones. The ruling requires a much stronger nexus between a speech restriction and a government interest than was presented here, setting a precedent that protects expressive activities in similar locations. Future litigation regarding protests near government buildings will rely on this case to challenge overly broad restrictions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Grace