Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Boos v. Barry

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublic ForumContent-Based RestrictionsOverbreadthVaguenessEqual Protection

Facts

Petitioners wanted to carry signs critical of the Soviet and Nicaraguan Governments on public sidewalks within 500 feet of those countries' embassies in Washington, D.C. They also wanted to congregate with two or more other persons within 500 feet of official foreign buildings. D.C. Code § 22-1115 made it unlawful to display signs designed or adapted to intimidate, coerce, or bring a foreign government into public odium or public disrepute within 500 feet of an embassy, and also made it unlawful to congregate within 500 feet of such a building and refuse to disperse after police order. Petitioners alleged the statute facially violated the First Amendment.

Issue

Whether D.C. Code § 22-1115 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting certain critical signs within 500 feet of foreign embassies and by authorizing dispersal of congregations within the same zone. Also, whether the labor-picketing exemption in § 22-1116 creates an equal protection problem.

Rule

A restriction on political speech in a traditional public forum is content based when it is justified only by reference to the content of the speech and its direct impact on listeners. Such a law must satisfy exacting scrutiny by being necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly drawn to achieve that end. By contrast, a narrowed place-and-manner regulation that applies only to embassy-directed congregations posing a threat to embassy security or peace does not facially violate the First Amendment, and federal courts may adopt a narrowing construction of federal legislation when fairly possible to avoid constitutional problems.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council in Seattle enacts an ordinance making it unlawful to display any sign on the public sidewalk within 400 feet of a foreign consulate if the sign is "designed to expose that government to public contempt or disrepute." Signs praising the foreign government remain permitted in the same area.

If challenged on its face under the First Amendment, how should a court most likely analyze the ordinance?

Explanation. Public sidewalks are traditional public fora, and a rule that permits favorable signs but forbids signs critical of a foreign government is content based. Under the majority opinion, content-based restrictions on political speech in a public forum receive the most exacting scrutiny: they must be necessary to serve a compelling interest and narrowly drawn. The Court expressly said a similar rule was content based, though not necessarily viewpoint based.