Facts
- The National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) notified Skokie, Illinois that it planned a May 1, 1977 demonstration of 30–50 marchers near village hall, wearing Nazi-style uniforms and swastika armbands.
- Skokie had a substantial Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors, and village officials feared emotional harm and the risk of violent confrontation.
- Skokie sought injunctive relief in Illinois state court.
- The Circuit Court of Cook County entered an injunction barring the NSPA from (1) marching in NSPA uniform, (2) displaying a swastika, and (3) distributing materials that incite or promote hatred against persons based on religion, ancestry, race, or similar status.
- The Illinois Appellate Court denied a stay pending appeal.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied both a stay and an expedited appeal, leaving the injunction in effect during ordinary appellate proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the Illinois Supreme Court’s denial of a stay was a “final judgment” reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
- Whether, when an injunction restrains activity claimed to be protected by the First Amendment, the state must provide strict procedural safeguards—particularly immediate appellate review—and, absent such review, grant a stay.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court treated the application as a petition for certiorari from the Illinois Supreme Court’s order denying a stay.
- The Court held the denial of a stay was reviewable as a final judgment because it conclusively determined a collateral claim that the injunction would deprive petitioners of First Amendment rights during appellate review.
- The Court held that when a state imposes an injunction restraining expression, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review.
- Because Illinois did not provide immediate review and denied a stay, the Court reversed the denial of a stay and remanded.
Legal Principles
- An order denying a stay of an injunction that restrains claimed First Amendment activity may be treated as a reviewable final judgment when it conclusively determines a separable, collateral claim of imminent constitutional deprivation during appellate delay.
- Prior restraints on expression must be accompanied by strict procedural safeguards.
- At minimum, such safeguards include immediate appellate review of an order restraining expression; if immediate review is not provided, a stay must be granted to prevent irreparable loss of First Amendment rights during appeal.
Conclusion
The Court required state courts to ensure rapid review (or a stay) when an injunction restrains activity plausibly protected by the First Amendment, because delay in reviewing a prior restraint can itself cause an irreparable constitutional injury.