Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Coates v. City of Cincinnati

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentVaguenessOverbreadthFreedom of Assemblyfacial challengevoid for vaguenessoverbreadth

Facts

A Cincinnati ordinance made it unlawful for three or more persons to assemble on sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots, or mouths of alleys and conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by or adjacent occupants. The record showed only that appellant Coates was a student involved in a demonstration and the other appellants were pickets involved in a labor dispute. The appellants challenged the ordinance on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the ordinance without giving it a narrowing construction different from its plain language.

Issue

Whether a city ordinance making it a crime for three or more persons to assemble and conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by is unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rule

A statute is facially unconstitutional when it makes the exercise of assembly turn on an unascertainable standard such as whether conduct is annoying to others, because no standard of conduct is specified at all and persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning. The State may not make criminal the exercise of the right of assembly simply because its exercise may be annoying to some people.

🔒

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.

Portland enacts an ordinance making it a misdemeanor for "three or more persons to gather in any public plaza and behave in a way irritating to nearby pedestrians." Maya Chen and two coworkers are cited while handing out leaflets in Pioneer Courthouse Square, and they bring a facial challenge before trial.

How should a court most likely rule on the facial challenge?

Explanation. A law is facially void for vagueness when it specifies no ascertainable standard of conduct at all, but instead makes legality depend on whether others are annoyed or irritated. The majority also held such a law overbroad because it punishes constitutionally protected assembly based on public reaction. The defect is facial and does not depend on proof of bad-faith enforcement. (Derived from Coates v. City of Cincinnati (n.d.).)