Walker v. City of Birmingham
388 U.S. 307 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who violates a court injunction, issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, cannot defend against a criminal contempt charge by challenging the constitutionality of the injunction; the proper method to challenge the injunction is through direct judicial review before violating the order.
Facts:
- City officials in Birmingham, Alabama, were concerned about planned civil rights demonstrations organized by Wyatt Tee Walker and other petitioners.
- On April 10, 1963, city officials obtained an ex parte temporary injunction from a state circuit court prohibiting the petitioners from participating in or encouraging mass street parades without a permit as required by a city ordinance.
- Several petitioners, including civil rights leaders, were served with the injunction on the morning of April 11.
- Later that day, some petitioners held a press conference and distributed a statement declaring their intention to disobey the injunction, calling it 'raw tyranny under the guise of maintaining law and order.'
- Prior to the injunction, petitioners' representatives had attempted to obtain a parade permit but were told by Public Safety Commissioner Eugene 'Bull' Connor, 'No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham, Alabama to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail.'
- On Good Friday, April 12, and Easter Sunday, April 14, petitioners led protest marches in Birmingham in defiance of the court's injunction.
- The petitioners did not apply for a parade permit nor did they file a motion in court to dissolve or modify the injunction before marching.
Procedural Posture:
- Officials of Birmingham, Alabama, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, a state trial court.
- The circuit judge granted an ex parte temporary injunction against the petitioners.
- After petitioners violated the injunction, the city applied to the circuit court for an order to show cause why petitioners should not be held in contempt.
- At the hearing, the circuit judge refused to consider petitioners' constitutional challenges and found them guilty of criminal contempt, sentencing them to five days in jail and a $50 fine.
- Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the contempt convictions, also declining to consider the constitutional claims under the rule that court orders must be obeyed until reversed.
- The petitioners (Walker et al.) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
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 party's failure to challenge a temporary injunction through available judicial procedures, before violating its terms, preclude that party from raising the injunction's alleged unconstitutionality as a defense in a subsequent criminal contempt proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. A party that violates a court injunction without first attempting to challenge its validity through proper judicial channels is precluded from raising the injunction's unconstitutionality as a defense in a subsequent criminal contempt proceeding. The state court that issued the injunction had jurisdiction over the petitioners and the subject matter of the controversy, and the injunction was not transparently invalid or frivolous. The proper course of action was to apply to the Alabama courts to have the injunction modified or dissolved. Petitioners had two days between the issuance of the injunction and the first march to seek judicial relief but failed to do so. The rule of law requires that court orders, even those that may be erroneous, must be obeyed until they are reversed through orderly review. Allowing individuals to be the judge of their own cases would undermine the judicial process and the rule of law.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Warren
No. Petitioners should be permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction in their contempt proceeding, as the injunction merely copied a patently unconstitutional city ordinance that gave local officials unfettered discretion to suppress First Amendment rights. The city sought the ex parte injunction to immunize its unconstitutional ordinance from challenge, a gross misuse of the judicial process. It was clear from Commissioner Connor's statements that no permit would be issued, rendering any judicial challenge before the planned marches futile and a delay that would have destroyed the protests' timeliness and effectiveness. The majority's holding gives a state the power to nullify the Constitution by incorporating its unconstitutional statutes into judicial decrees.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. An ordinance that is unconstitutional on its face is not made sacred by an unconstitutional injunction that enforces it, and it can and should be flouted. The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic, and petitioners diligently attempted to obtain a permit but were rebuffed. Forcing individuals to pursue a lengthy judicial remedy before they may exercise their First Amendment rights renders the protest futile, as the occasion for it will have passed. A state court decree is state action, and a court does not have jurisdiction to do what an agency of the state lacks jurisdiction to do; it cannot enforce an unconstitutional law.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The Court's decision elevates a state rule of judicial administration above the right of free expression guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, effectively emptying the Supremacy Clause of its meaning. The Court has consistently held that individuals can challenge unconstitutional permit laws without first applying for a permit; these rights should not be lost simply because a judge appends his signature to an ex parte order reciting the invalid statute. The ex parte injunction is a devastating weapon against First Amendment freedoms. Requiring petitioners to seek dissolution of the injunction, with no time limits on a decision, would have crippled their timely and effective protest on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
Analysis:
This case establishes and strongly affirms the 'collateral bar rule,' which prevents a defendant in a contempt proceeding from challenging the constitutionality of the underlying court order they violated. The decision prioritizes the integrity and authority of the judicial process over the immediate exercise of First Amendment rights, mandating that legal challenges to court orders must proceed through the courts themselves, not through defiance. This ruling creates a crucial distinction between violating an unconstitutional statute (which can sometimes be a valid basis for a legal challenge) and violating a direct court order (which cannot). It has a lasting impact on civil disobedience as a strategy, requiring protestors to litigate against restraining orders before taking action, which can cause critical delays and undermine the effectiveness of time-sensitive demonstrations.
Unlock the full brief for Walker v. City of Birmingham