Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechPrior RestraintsContent NeutralityPublic Forumsprior restrainttraditional public forum

Facts

After large and contentious civil rights demonstrations in Forsyth County, the county enacted an ordinance requiring permits for parades, assemblies, demonstrations, and other uses of public property, and authorizing a fee of up to $1,000 per day. As amended, the ordinance empowered the county administrator to adjust the fee to meet administrative expenses and the cost of maintaining public order. In 1989, the Nationalist Movement sought to hold a rally on the courthouse steps opposing the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, and the county imposed a $100 fee based on the administrator's estimate of his processing time. The Movement refused to pay and instead filed suit, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face.

Issue

Whether a county ordinance requiring a permit and variable fee for speech-related events in a traditional public forum violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it leaves fee-setting to an administrator's discretion and permits fees based on the estimated cost of maintaining public order. Also, whether a fee cap or nominal fee requirement determines the ordinance's constitutionality.

Rule

A licensing scheme that subjects speech in a traditional public forum to a permit and fee is a prior restraint and must contain narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority. Any time, place, and manner permit scheme must be content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. A fee tied to anticipated policing costs arising from listeners' reaction to speech is content based and unconstitutional, and a fee cap or nominal amount does not cure those defects.

🔒

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.

Madison, Wisconsin requires a permit for rallies in the city square. The ordinance lets the events director charge any fee up to $800 "as appropriate in light of the event," and the director is not required to explain the amount or apply written criteria.

A neighborhood advocacy group brings a facial First Amendment challenge before holding its rally. Which is the strongest argument that the fee provision is unconstitutional?

Explanation. A permit-and-fee requirement for speech in a traditional public forum is a prior restraint. The majority held such a scheme must contain narrow, objective, and definite standards guiding the licensing authority. A fee cap does not cure the defect, and a facial challenge may proceed without proof of discriminatory application in a particular case because the danger is the absence of standards itself. (Derived from Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (1992).)