Facts
-
Richard Grayned participated in a civil-rights demonstration on April 25, 1969, outside West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois, during school hours.
-
Approximately 200 demonstrators gathered near the school and protested perceived racial inequities in the school system.
-
Rockford enforced two ordinances against Grayned:
- An anti-picketing ordinance barring picketing within 100 feet of a school while in session, except “peaceful picketing” involving a labor dispute.
- An anti-noise ordinance prohibiting willful noise or diversion on grounds adjacent to a school that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the school session.
-
Grayned was convicted of violating both ordinances and fined $25 on each count.
-
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and upheld both ordinances.
-
Evidence at trial included testimony that demonstrators made repeated audible noise that distracted students, drew students to classroom windows, and included calls for students to leave class and join the protest.
Issues
- Whether the school anti-picketing ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on the subject matter of speech (permitting labor picketing while banning other picketing).
- Whether the anti-noise ordinance was unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether the anti-noise ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibited protected expressive activity.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part (opinion by Justice Marshall).
- The anti-picketing ordinance was held unconstitutional; Grayned’s conviction under that ordinance was reversed.
- The anti-noise ordinance was upheld as constitutional; Grayned’s conviction under that ordinance was affirmed.
- The Court concluded the anti-noise ordinance gave fair notice, set enforceable standards tied to school-session disruption, and was applied to conduct that materially interfered with school activities.
Legal Principles
- Government may not discriminate among speakers or messages in a public forum by permitting picketing on one subject (labor disputes) while prohibiting picketing on other subjects; such content discrimination violates equal protection and related First Amendment values.
- A law regulating speech is void for vagueness if persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to its application; vagueness is especially problematic where it risks arbitrary enforcement and chills expression.
- A speech-related regulation is not unconstitutionally vague when it is limited by context and clear operational terms, including a willfulness requirement and a concrete link to interference with an ongoing school session.
- A time, place, and manner restriction near a school may be valid when it targets actual or imminent, willful interference with normal school activity and does not sweep in substantial protected expression.
- Expressive activity may be restricted when it materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of others’ rights.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Rockford’s selective school-zone picketing ban because it singled out nonlabor messages for exclusion, but sustained a narrowly focused anti-noise ordinance that prohibited only willful, materially disruptive interference with an active school session.