Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPrior RestraintProcedural Due ProcessFirst Amendmentprior restraintinjunctionex parte

Facts

Petitioners, associated with the National States Rights Party, held a public rally in Princess Anne on August 6, 1966, where amplified speeches used deliberately derogatory, insulting, and threatening racist language. During that rally, it was announced that another rally would be held the next night. On August 7, local officials obtained an ex parte restraining order, without notice or any attempt to notify petitioners, barring them for 10 days from holding rallies or meetings in the county that would tend to disturb and endanger citizens. Petitioners were apparently present in the area and some were served with the injunction that evening, causing the scheduled August 7 rally not to occur.

Issue

Whether a 10-day state court injunction restraining a scheduled political rally may constitutionally be issued ex parte, without notice or any opportunity for the speakers to participate, in the absence of a showing that notifying them was impossible or unsuccessful. The Court did not decide whether the facts otherwise justified an injunction against the rally.

Rule

A system of prior restraints on expression bears a heavy presumption against constitutional validity, and any noncriminal prior restraint avoids constitutional infirmity only if accompanied by procedural safeguards adequate to obviate the dangers of censorship. In the area of First Amendment freedoms, an ex parte temporary restraining order suppressing speech cannot be sustained where no showing is made that it was impossible to serve or notify the opposing parties and give them an opportunity to participate. Any order affecting First Amendment rights must also be drawn in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the constitutionally permitted objective.

🔒

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.

In Toledo, Ohio, members of the Riverfront Patriots announced at a Saturday rally that they would return the next evening for another demonstration in the same plaza. On Sunday morning, city officials obtained a seven-day temporary restraining order barring the group from holding any rally in the county that might unsettle residents, but they made no effort to call, locate, or otherwise notify the organizers even though officers had spoken with them the night before.

If the organizers challenge the order on First Amendment grounds, what is the strongest basis for invalidating it?

Explanation. The majority held that in the area of First Amendment freedoms, an ex parte temporary restraining order suppressing speech cannot be sustained where no showing is made that it was impossible to serve or notify the opposing parties and give them an opportunity to participate. Prior restraints bear a heavy presumption against constitutional validity, and the lack of notice is especially problematic where the speakers are readily available.