Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Carey v. Brown

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionContent-Based Speech RegulationResidential Picketingresidential picketingpublic forumcontent discrimination

Facts

Several appellees, members of the Committee Against Racism, peacefully demonstrated on a public sidewalk in front of then-Mayor Michael Bilandic's home to protest his alleged failure to support busing for school integration. They were arrested and charged under an Illinois statute that generally prohibited picketing before or about any residence or dwelling, but exempted, among other things, the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute. Appellees later sought only prospective relief, alleging they wished to resume residential picketing but were deterred by the threat of prosecution. They argued that the statute's labor-picketing exception made it an impermissible content-based restriction on protected expression.

Issue

Whether an Illinois statute that generally bans residential picketing, but exempts peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by discriminating on the basis of the content of the picketer's message.

Rule

When government regulates speech-related activity in a public forum, it may not discriminate among picketers based on the subject matter of their expression unless the distinction is finely tailored to serve substantial state interests. A state may protect residential privacy through reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content, but it may not selectively allow labor picketing while forbidding other peaceful picketing that is equally likely to invade residential privacy.

🔒

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.

Portsville, Oregon, makes it a misdemeanor to picket on any public sidewalk within 100 feet of a residence. The ordinance exempts only peaceful picketing "concerning wages, hours, or working conditions" at a residence where a domestic worker is employed. Nora Kim wants to peacefully picket outside a city councilmember's home in Portland about a proposed eviction policy.

If Nora challenges the ordinance, what is the strongest constitutional argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. Public streets and sidewalks are traditional public forums, and peaceful picketing there is protected expressive conduct. A law that permits residential picketing for one topic, such as labor disputes, while prohibiting other peaceful residential picketing makes legality turn on the message conveyed. Under the majority's rule, such content-based discrimination must be finely tailored to serve substantial state interests, and residential privacy does not justify allowing labor picketing that is equally likely to intrude on the home.