Ward v. Rock Against Racism
491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A content-neutral time, place, or manner regulation of protected speech is constitutionally permissible so long as it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication; it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so.
Facts:
- Rock Against Racism (RAR), an unincorporated association, sponsored annual programs of speeches and rock music at the Naumberg Bandshell in New York City's Central Park.
- For several years, RAR furnished its own sound equipment and sound technician for its events.
- The city received numerous complaints from park users and nearby residents about excessive sound volume at RAR's concerts.
- On some occasions, RAR was uncooperative when asked to reduce the volume, and at one event, police had to cut off the power, causing the audience to become unruly.
- In response, the city developed new Use Guidelines for the bandshell, which required all performers to use a sound-amplification system and a sound technician provided by the city.
- The city's stated purposes for the guideline were to control volume to avoid disturbing park users and residents and to ensure the sound quality was adequate for the audience.
- The city's policy was to have its technician defer to the performers' wishes on sound mix, while retaining ultimate control over volume.
Procedural Posture:
- Rock Against Racism (RAR) sued the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the city's sound-amplification guideline.
- The District Court initially granted a preliminary injunction to RAR.
- After a trial on the merits, the District Court dissolved the injunction and upheld the sound-amplification guideline as a constitutional time, place, or manner regulation.
- RAR appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the guideline unconstitutional because the city failed to prove it was the 'least intrusive means' of regulating volume.
- The City of New York successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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 municipal regulation that requires performers at a public bandshell to use a city-provided sound system and sound technician violate the First Amendment because it is not the least restrictive means of achieving the city's interest in controlling noise levels?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A time, place, or manner regulation does not violate the First Amendment simply because a less restrictive alternative exists; to be narrowly tailored, the regulation must simply promote a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without it. The regulation is content-neutral because its justifications—controlling noise and ensuring sound quality—are unrelated to the content of the expression. The city has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from excessive noise and in ensuring audiences can hear performances. The regulation is narrowly tailored because it directly and effectively serves these interests, which would be served less well without it. The Court of Appeals erred by applying a 'least-restrictive-alternative' analysis, which is not part of the time, place, or manner inquiry. So long as the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary, the regulation is valid.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The regulation is not narrowly tailored and constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The majority effectively abandons the narrow tailoring requirement by rejecting a less-restrictive-alternative analysis. The city's interest in controlling noise could be served by less intrusive means, such as enforcing its existing noise ordinance against those who are actually responsible for excessive volume. Furthermore, the guideline is a quintessential prior restraint because it gives a city official total, unguided discretion to control the sound mix and volume—and thus the expressive content—of a performance in real-time, without definite standards or the possibility of prompt judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the 'narrowly tailored' prong of the time, place, and manner test for speech regulations. The Court explicitly rejected the need for the government to prove its regulation is the 'least restrictive means' of achieving its goals, thereby granting more deference to legislative and administrative judgments. This lowers the burden for governments to justify content-neutral regulations in public forums, making it easier to defend rules aimed at controlling noise, traffic, or other secondary effects of speech. The holding distinguishes the intermediate scrutiny applied to time, place, or manner regulations from the strict scrutiny applied to content-based laws, where a least-restrictive-means analysis is often required.
