Facts
- Boston ordinance § 66 barred any person from making a public address on public grounds unless “in accordance with a permit from the mayor.”
- William F. Davis delivered a public address on Boston Common without obtaining a mayoral permit.
- Davis was charged with making a public address on the Common without the required permit.
- The municipal court denied Davis’s motion to quash (asserting state-constitutional and Fourteenth Amendment violations) and convicted him.
- On removal to the superior court, the motion to quash was again denied, and Davis was tried and convicted.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed, reasoning that legislative control of streets and parks resembled a private owner’s authority to control use of private property.
- Davis sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the ordinance as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issues
- Whether a municipal ordinance requiring a mayoral permit for public addresses on city public grounds violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of liberty or property when used to convict a speaker who addressed the public without a permit.
- Whether a state (and municipality) may regulate speech-related activity on publicly owned streets and parks as an incident of its control over public property and its police powers.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held the permit requirement for public addresses on public grounds was not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court found the record contained no proof establishing any special individual right in Davis to use the Common beyond public use subject to regulation.
- The Court reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment does not eliminate state authority to enact police regulations over subjects within state control, including management of public property.
Legal Principles
- A state may control and regulate the use of streets and public places, and may delegate such regulatory authority to municipalities, as part of its governance of public property.
- The Fourteenth Amendment does not, by itself, create a general individual entitlement to use government-owned public grounds for speaking independent of lawful regulations governing those grounds.
- Conditioning public speaking on public grounds upon obtaining a permit may be a valid exercise of state and municipal police power when not shown to contravene a specific federal constitutional limitation.
- Absent proof of a distinct personal property or access right, a speaker cannot establish a Fourteenth Amendment property-based claim to use public grounds for an address beyond the general public enjoyment regulated by the government.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Boston’s ordinance requiring a mayoral permit for public addresses on public grounds and affirmed Davis’s conviction, reasoning that regulation of speech on publicly owned parks and similar property fell within state and municipal authority and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment on the record presented.