Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1971

Coates v. City of Cincinnati

402 U.S. 611 | 91 S. Ct. 1686 | 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 | 1971 U.S. LEXIS 38 | 58 Ohio Op. 2d 481

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that government cannot make public assembly criminal merely because someone finds it “annoying,” especially where that undefined standard invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Background

Cincinnati’s ordinance made it a crime for three or more people to assemble on sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots, or alley mouths and conduct themselves in a manner “annoying” to passersby or nearby occupants. Coates was a student involved in a demonstration, and the other appellants were labor pickets. The record did not describe the particular conduct found annoying.

The appellants were convicted under the ordinance. The Supreme Court of Ohio, by a closely divided vote, affirmed their convictions and upheld the ordinance. It treated “annoying” as a commonly understood term and did not supply a meaningful limiting construction or identify whose sensitivity governed. The appellants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the ordinance was facially invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction to review the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the ordinance against a federal constitutional challenge.

Holding

Yes. The appeal was properly before the Court under the then-applicable provision permitting review when a state’s highest court sustained a statute challenged as repugnant to the Federal Constitution.

Reasoning

The Ohio Supreme Court had entered a final judgment affirming convictions and rejecting the appellants’ claim that the Cincinnati ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That posture brought the case within the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, and the Court had noted probable jurisdiction.

Issue #2

Whether the ordinance was facially void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes. The ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because “annoying” supplied no ascertainable standard for regulating assembled persons’ conduct.

Reasoning

The ordinance made criminal liability turn on whether the conduct of three or more assembled people annoyed someone passing by or occupying an adjacent building. What annoys one person may not annoy another, so the ordinance did not tell citizens what conduct they must avoid.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s statement that “annoying” was a familiar word did not cure the constitutional defect. Although it said liability did not depend on each complainant’s personal sensitivity, it never identified an objective standard—such as the judgment of a reasonable person, judge, jury, or officer—by which annoyance would be measured.

The resulting uncertainty gave police and courts open-ended discretion. Persons of ordinary intelligence had to guess whether their conduct would be deemed criminal, particularly because a violation could effectively depend on whether a police officer happened to be annoyed.

Cincinnati could constitutionally prohibit concrete antisocial acts such as blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering, or assaulting others. But it had to define those prohibited acts with reasonable specificity rather than criminalize an undefined category of annoying conduct.

Issue #3

Whether the ordinance facially violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of assembly and association by criminalizing conduct that others found annoying.

Holding

Yes. A state may not punish the exercise of public assembly and association merely because it annoys, irritates, or is resented by others.

Reasoning

The ordinance directly reached people who gathered in public places, including persons engaged in demonstrations and labor picketing. Its broad prohibition therefore burdened activity at the core of the constitutional freedoms of assembly and association.

Public intolerance or hostility cannot justify suppressing protected expression, assembly, or association. If annoyance to others were enough, the public’s right to gather for social or political purposes could be suspended whenever officials enforced a prohibition against conduct that some bystanders disliked.

The ordinance also invited discriminatory enforcement. Officials could target groups whose views, lifestyle, or appearance offended the majority while leaving similarly situated but more popular groups undisturbed.

The absence of a factual record describing the appellants’ particular conduct did not save the ordinance. The constitutional vice was facial: the ordinance itself established the impermissible standard and authorized punishment for activity that the Constitution protects.

Concurrences

Justice Black

Reasoning

Justice Black agreed that the case was properly before the Court and accepted the settled principle that a law is facially invalid when persons of common understanding cannot tell what it forbids. He also agreed that a law broadly prohibiting constitutionally protected activity, including political discussion, may be void on its face.

He viewed this ordinance differently from a law that is wholly vague or wholly directed at protected conduct. In his view, the ordinance covered both protected activity, such as an annoying political speech, and plainly punishable conduct, such as a group gathering to throw rocks at passersby.

Because the record did not reveal what the appellants actually did, Justice Black thought the Court could not determine whether the convictions rested on protected conduct or on conduct the city could validly punish. He would have vacated and remanded for the parties to develop the factual record before resolving the constitutional question.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, maintained that the ordinance was not facially vague. In his view, a person of ordinary understanding would know that conduct such as assaulting people or blocking their passage was annoying and clearly covered by the ordinance.

Ordinarily, a defendant whose own conduct is plainly within a criminal law’s constitutional reach cannot invalidate the law merely because it might be vague in other applications. Whether the ordinance was vague as applied therefore depended on facts that the record failed to provide.

Justice White acknowledged that the Court sometimes permits facial overbreadth challenges to laws directed at speech or press, because such laws may chill protected expression. But he concluded that this ordinance regulated conduct by assembled persons, not speech as such. Picketing and demonstrations have expressive elements, but they also involve conduct that government may regulate.

Since the ordinance clearly covered at least some punishable conduct and the Court did not know what conduct the appellants had committed, Justice White would not invalidate it on its face. He would have affirmed the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment.