Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham: Difference between revisions
Cdogsimmons (talk | contribs) added link |
m fix a few things, new first sentence |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{SCOTUSCase |
{{SCOTUSCase |
||
|Litigants=Shuttlesworth v. |
|Litigants=Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham |
||
|ArgueDate=October 18 |
|ArgueDate=October 18 |
||
|ArgueYear=1968 |
|ArgueYear=1968 |
||
|DecideDate=March 10 |
|DecideDate=March 10 |
||
|DecideYear=1969 |
|DecideYear=1969 |
||
|FullName=Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham |
|FullName=Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham |
||
|Citation=382 U.S. 87 |
|||
|USVol=382 |
|USVol=382 |
||
|USPage=87 |
|USPage=87 |
||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
The Petitioner was an [[African American]] minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in [[Birmingham, Alabama]], in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Shuttleworth was represented by the prominent civil rights attorney [[James Nabrit]]. |
'''''Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham''''', [[Case citation|382 U.S. 87]] (1969), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case. The Petitioner was an [[African American]] minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in [[Birmingham, Alabama]], in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Shuttleworth was represented by the prominent civil rights attorney [[James Nabrit]]. |
||
Writing for the court, Justice [[Potter Stewart]] held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1142 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance only prohibited standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1132 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. Even though justice Stewart's opinion for the Court mentioned that "the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance", the Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
* ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' |
* ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' |
||
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 382]] |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
Revision as of 22:56, 10 November 2007
| Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 18, 1968 Decided March 10, 1969 | |
| Full case name | Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham |
| Citations | 382 U.S. 87 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Court held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1142 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance only prohibited standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1132 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Petitioner was an African American minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Shuttleworth was represented by the prominent civil rights attorney James Nabrit.
Writing for the court, Justice Potter Stewart held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1142 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance only prohibited standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1132 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. Even though justice Stewart's opinion for the Court mentioned that "the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance", the Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas.