Facts
- The Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin enacted an ordinance making it unlawful to engage in picketing “before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual,” citing protection of residential tranquility and privacy.
- Anti-abortion protesters, including Sandra C. Schultz and Robert C. Braun, repeatedly picketed for 60–90 minutes outside the home of a physician who performed abortions.
- The demonstrations were generally peaceful but generated controversy and numerous complaints from residents.
- Brookfield had earlier adopted a residential picketing ban with a labor-picketing exception, then repealed it after similar content-based exceptions were held unconstitutional, and replaced it with a ban applying to all picketing at residences.
- Schultz and Braun filed a federal § 1983 action challenging the ordinance as violating the First Amendment.
Issues
- Whether a municipal ordinance prohibiting picketing “before or about” any residence is facially invalid under the First Amendment when applied to picketing on public streets in a residential neighborhood.
- Whether the ordinance, as a restriction in a traditional public forum, is a permissible content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment invalidating the ordinance and held the ordinance not facially unconstitutional.
- The Court treated the streets as traditional public fora and evaluated the law under time, place, and manner standards.
- The Court construed the ordinance narrowly to prohibit only picketing focused on, and taking place in front of, a particular residence (targeted residential picketing).
- As so construed, the Court held the ordinance content-neutral, narrowly tailored to a significant interest in residential privacy, and leaving open ample alternative channels of communication.
- Justice White concurred in the judgment.
- Justices Brennan (joined by Marshall) and Stevens dissented, arguing the ban suppressed protected political expression and that narrower tools could address harassment.
Legal Principles
- In a traditional public forum, a content-neutral restriction is valid if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication.
- Protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is a significant governmental interest that can justify limits on targeted speech directed at residents as a captive audience.
- A court may adopt a narrowing construction of an ordinance to avoid constitutional invalidity, including construing a residential picketing ban to reach only picketing directed at a single, identified home.
- A prohibition on targeted residential picketing can be constitutional when it does not bar general marching, neighborhood advocacy, door-to-door outreach, or other non-targeted methods of communication.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Brookfield’s ordinance by construing it to ban only picketing targeted at a particular residence, concluding that this content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction validly protects residential privacy while preserving alternative means of expression in residential areas.