HENRY et al. v. CITY OF ROCK HILL, 376 U.S. 776 (1964)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- April 06, 1964
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1963
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Majority Opinion
John Harlan (1955-71) Hugo Black William Douglas Potter Stewart William Brennan Byron White Earl Warren Tom Clark Arthur Goldberg
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
HENRY ET AL.
v.
CITY OF ROCK HILL.
Supreme Court of United States.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Donald James Sampson and Willie T. Smith, Jr. for petitioners.
PER CURIAM.
When this case was last before us, we granted certiorari, vacated the judgment holding petitioners guilty of breach of the peace, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina “for further consideration in light of Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229.” 375 U. S. 6. That has been our practice in analogous situations where, not certain that the case was free from all obstacles to reversal on an intervening precedent, we remand the case to the state court for reconsideration. Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U. S. 1; Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U. S. 2; Newsome v. North Carolina, 375 U. S. 21; Shockey v. Illinois, 375 U. S. 22; Ausbie v. California, 375 U. S. 24; Herrera v. Heinze, 375 U. S. 26; Barnes v. North Carolina, 375 U. S. 28. The South Carolina Supreme Court examined Edwards and the later case of Fields v. South *777 Carolina, 375 U. S. 44, found them not controlling, and reaffirmed the convictions. In its opinion on the remand in the present case, the South Carolina Supreme Court expressed doubt concerning the meaning and significance of our remand order, and it went on to explain why, in its view, the Edwards and the Fields cases were distinguishable. For those reasons, it is appropriate to add these words of explanation.
The South Carolina Supreme Court correctly concluded that our earlier remand did not amount to a final determination on the merits.[*] That order did, however, indicate that we found Edwards sufficiently analogous and, perhaps, decisive to compel re-examination of the case.
We now think Edwards and Fields control the result here. As in those cases, the petitioners here, while at a place where the State’s law did not forbid them to be, were engaged in the “peaceful expression of unpopular views.” Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S., at 237. They assembled in a peaceful, orderly fashion in front of the City Hall to protest segregation. They carried signs to that effect and they sang patriotic and religious songs. Although white onlookers assembled, no violence or threat of violence occurred and traffic was not disturbed. After 15 minutes of this, they were arrested for failure to disperse upon orders. Here, as in Edwards and Fields, petitioners “were convicted of an offense so generalized as to be, in the words of the South Carolina Supreme Court, `not susceptible of exact definition.’ ” Ibid. And here as there “they were convicted upon evidence which showed no more than that the opinions which they were *778 peaceably expressing were sufficiently opposed to the views of the majority of the community to attract a crowd and necessitate police protection.” Ibid.
Edwards established that the “Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a State to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views.” Ibid. As in Edwards, the South Carolina Supreme Court has here “defined a criminal offense so as to permit conviction of the petitioners if their speech `stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.’ [Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 5.]” Id., at 238. Accordingly certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.
NOTES
[*] The South Carolina Supreme Court intimated that the rule of Edwards was designed to guide us in determining our review of state action. But Edwards states a rule based upon the Constitution of the United States which, under the Supremacy Clause, is binding upon state courts as well as upon federal courts.
ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, SR., et al., 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
DEBORAH MORSE, et al. v. JOSEPH FREDERICK, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
VIRGINIA v. BARRY ELTON BLACK, RICHARD J. ELLIOTT, AND JONATHAN O’MARA, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
PAUL SCHENCK AND DWIGHT SAUNDERS v. PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK et al., 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., et al., 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. SHAWN D. EICHMAN, DAVID GERALD BLALOCK AND SCOTT W. TYLER, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION et al., 493 U.S. 411 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. ALBERTINI, 472 U.S. 675 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al., 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. et al., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAREY, STATE’S ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY v. BROWN et al., 447 U.S. 455 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SPENCE v. WASHINGTON, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SMITH, SHERIFF v. GOGUEN, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 415 U.S. 130 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 414 U.S. 14 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
PLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, 414 U.S. 2 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GOODING, WARDEN v. WILSON, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
COATES et al. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BACHELLAR et al. v. MARYLAND, 397 U.S. 564 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JONES v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TENNESSEE et al., 397 U.S. 31 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
COWGILL v. CALIFORNIA, 396 U.S. 371 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GREGORY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 394 U.S. 111 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TINKER et al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. O’BRIEN, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ZWICKER et al. v. BOLL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DANE COUNTY et al., 391 U.S. 353 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAMERON et al. v. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., 390 U.S. 611 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TURNER et al. v. NEW YORK, 386 U.S. 773 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. OVERSTREET, 384 U.S. 118 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 382 U.S. 87 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD., 375 U.S. 248 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 522 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
HUGHES ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 339 U.S. 460 (1950)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
KOVACS v. COOPER, JUDGE, 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CARLSON v. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106 (1940)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
Topics: Freedom of Assembly & Petition, Protests
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE