Facts
- Cincinnati enacted an ordinance making it unlawful for three or more persons to assemble on sidewalks and similar public places and “conduct themselves in a manner annoying” to passersby or adjacent occupants.
- The ordinance authorized penalties of a fine, short-term imprisonment, or both.
- Dennis Coates, a student involved in a demonstration, and other individuals involved in labor picketing were convicted under the ordinance for engaging in “annoying” conduct.
- The record contained minimal detail about what the defendants did beyond participating in a demonstration and picketing.
- The defendants challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that “annoying” was a commonly understood term and that the ordinance sufficiently defined prohibited conduct.
Issues
- Whether the ordinance’s “annoying” standard is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Whether the ordinance is unconstitutional under the First Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) because it burdens protected assembly and expression.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and held the ordinance facially unconstitutional.
- The Court held the ordinance was void for vagueness because it made criminal liability depend on an unascertainable, subjective standard: what annoys one person may not annoy another.
- The Court held the ordinance was overbroad because it authorized punishment of constitutionally protected conduct, including peaceful assembly on public sidewalks.
- Justice Black wrote separately, favoring vacatur and remand given the limited factual record.
- Justice White dissented (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun), arguing the ordinance could be valid at least as applied to clearly objectionable conduct and should not be invalidated on its face.
Legal Principles
- A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to give fair notice and permits enforcement based on subjective reactions, especially when it conditions the exercise of First Amendment rights on such a standard.
- Government may not make peaceful assembly in traditional public fora criminal based on whether observers find the assembly “annoying.”
- A law is overbroad when it authorizes punishment of substantial amounts of constitutionally protected speech or assembly along with conduct the government may regulate.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court invalidated Cincinnati’s ordinance because the term “annoying” imposed a subjective, indeterminate basis for criminal liability and swept within its reach peaceful expressive gatherings, violating due process and the First Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.