|
|
Case Summary for Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement |
|
|
| Date Decided: | June 19, 1992 | | Issue: | Freedom of Assembly -- Whether a local ordinance may constitutionally permit a government administrator to vary the fee charged for a parade permit to reflect the estimated cost of maintaining public order during the parade. | | Vote: | No, 5-4 | | Facts: | After several violent confrontations between civil rights marchers and local residents, the Forsyth (Georgia) County Board of Commissioners enacted an ordinance that permitted the county administrator to adjust the fee charged for a parade permit, up to a maximum of $1,000, to reflect the estimated cost of maintaining public order during the parade. In January 1989, The Nationalist Movement applied for a permit to demonstrate in opposition to the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. The county charged a $100 fee that did include any calculation for expenses incurred by law enforcement authorities. The Movement challenged the fee in federal court. The federal district court rejected the challenge. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the arbitrary fee violated the First Amendment. | | Legal Principles at Issue: | A government may regulate competing uses of public forums, such as streets and sidewalks, by imposing permit requirements on those who wish to hold rallies, parades, and marches. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). The regulatory scheme, however, must not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, must be content-neutral, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternative channels for communication. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). | | Legal Basis for Decision: | The Court held that the ordinance, as drafted and as applied, granted the county administrator uncontrolled discretion. The Court further held that this uncontrolled discretion could result in fees being based upon the content of the speech and censorship. The dissent argued that the holding in Cox permitted the ordinance at issue. | | This Case is Important Because: | The Court implicitly overruled the decision in Cox and adopted a standard that will further restrict the discretion available to local governmental administrators in parade permitting matters. | | Quotable: | "Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob." | | Writing for the Majority: | Justice Blackmun | | Voting with the Majority: | Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter | | Writing for the Dissent: | Chief Justice Rehnquist | | Voting with the Dissent: | Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas | | Not Voting: | N/A | |
|