Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Cox v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court of the United States · 1941 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssemblyFree ExerciseTime, Place, and Mannerparade permitspublic streets

Facts

Sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses met in Manchester, New Hampshire, for an "information march" and divided into groups that marched in single-file formation along city sidewalks in the business district. They carried signs with religious and political messages and handed out leaflets announcing a later public meeting, but they did not apply for or receive a permit. The conceded evidence showed that the march interfered with normal sidewalk travel, although no technical breach of the peace occurred. The only charge was participation in a parade or procession on public streets without a permit.

Issue

Whether New Hampshire could constitutionally require a special license for a parade or procession on public streets, as applied to appellants, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment protections of freedom of worship, speech, press, and assembly. Also at issue was whether the licensing scheme and its fee provision vested arbitrary power or were otherwise invalid.

Rule

A state or municipality may regulate the use of public streets for parades and processions through a permit system that is confined to considerations of time, place, and manner for the purpose of conserving public convenience and maintaining public order. Such a system is constitutional if it does not vest arbitrary or unfettered discretion, is administered with uniformity and without unfair discrimination, and any fee is limited to defraying administrative and policing expenses rather than raising revenue.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, the city requires a permit for any organized march on public streets. Mira Solis and forty supporters of a housing reform campaign apply to march downtown at noon on a Saturday, but the licensing board moves the march to 3 p.m. and two parallel blocks away because another procession and heavy market traffic are already scheduled on the original route.

If the group challenges the permit system under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. A municipality may require a permit for parades or processions on public streets when official discretion is confined to time, place, and manner considerations aimed at conserving public convenience and maintaining public order. A route and time adjustment to avoid congestion and overlapping events fits that limited authority. The rule does not require proof of an actual breach of the peace, and it does not forbid all prior permitting for organized street processions.