Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1948.

TERMINIELLO v. CHICAGO.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 272. Argued February 1, 1949. Decided May 16, 1949.

In a meeting which attracted considerable public attention, petitioner addressed a large audience in an auditorium outside of which was an angry and turbulent crowd protesting against the meeting. He condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously criticized various political and racial groups. Notwithstanding efforts of a cordon of police to maintain order, there were several disturbances in the crowd. Petitioner was charged with violation of an ordinance forbidding any "breach of the peace," and the trial court instructed the jury that any misbehavior which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" violates the ordinance. Petitioner did not except to that instruction, but he did maintain at all times that, as applied to his conduct, the ordinance violated his right of free speech under the Federal Constitution. He was convicted on a general verdict and his conviction was affirmed by an intermediate appellate court and by the Supreme Court of the State. Held:

1. As construed by the trial court and applied to petitioner, the ordinance violates the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-5.

2. It is immaterial that petitioner took no exception to the instruction and that, throughout the appellate proceedings, the state courts assumed that the only conduct punishable and punished under the ordinance was conduct constituting "fighting words,"

1

Opinion of the Court.

337 U.S.

since the verdict was a general one and it cannot be said that petitioner's conviction was not based upon the instruction quoted above. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359. Pp. 5-6. 400 Ill. 23, 79 N. E. 2d 39, reversed.

Petitioner was convicted in a state court of violating a city ordinance forbidding any breach of the peace. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. 332 Ill. App. 17, 74 N. E. 2d 45. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. 400 Ill. 23, 79 N. E. 2d 39. This Court granted certiorari. 335 U. S. 890. Reversed, p. 6.

Albert W. Dilling argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

L. Louis Karton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Benjamin S. Adamowski, Joseph F. Grossman, A. A. Pantelis and Harry A. Iseberg.

William E. Rodriguez and Osmond K. Fraenkel filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus. curiae, urging reversal.

William Maslow, Shad Polier and Byron S. Miller filed a brief for the American Jewish Congress, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance,

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner after jury trial was found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of a city ordinance of Chicago1 and fined. The case grew out of an address he delivered in an auditorium in Chicago under the auspices of the

1"All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace, within the limits of the city... shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct, and upon conviction thereof, shall be severally fined not less than one dollar nor more than two hundred dollars for each offense." Municipal Code of Chicago, 1939, § 193-1.

1

Opinion of the Court.

Christian Veterans of America. The meeting commanded considerable public attention. The auditorium was filled to capacity with over eight hundred persons present. Others were turned away. Outside of the auditorium a crowd of about one thousand persons gathered to protest against the meeting. A cordon of policemen was assigned to the meeting to maintain order; but they were not able to prevent several disturbances. The crowd outside was angry and turbulent.

Petitioner in his speech condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously, if not viciously, criticized various political and racial groups whose activities he denounced as inimical to the nation's welfare.

The trial court charged that "breach of the peace" consists of any "misbehavior which violates the public peace and decorum"; and that the "misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace and quiet by arousing alarm." Petitioner did not take exception to that instruction. But he maintained at all times that the ordinance as applied to his conduct violated his right of free speech under the Federal Constitution. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court (332 Ill. App. 17, 74 N. E. 2d 45) and by the Illinois Supreme Court. 396 Ill. 41, 71 N. E. 2d 2; 400 Ill. 23, 79 N. E. 2d 39. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the question presented.

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »