Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Frisby v. Schultz

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublic Forum DoctrineTime, Place, and Manner Restrictionstraditional public forumpublic streetsresidential picketing

Facts

Brookfield, Wisconsin enacted an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to engage in picketing 'before or about' the residence or dwelling of any individual in the town. The ordinance was adopted after appellees and others peacefully picketed outside the home of a doctor who apparently performed abortions, with groups ranging from 11 to more than 40 people. The ordinance stated that its purpose was to protect the home by preserving tranquility, privacy, and well-being, and also expressed concern about obstruction of sidewalks and streets. When informed that enforcement would begin, appellees ceased picketing and challenged the ordinance on its face under the First Amendment.

Issue

Whether Brookfield's ordinance banning residential picketing violates the First Amendment on its face. More specifically, whether a content-neutral ban on focused picketing in front of a particular residence is a valid time, place, and manner restriction in a traditional public forum.

Rule

Public streets are traditional public fora, including those in residential neighborhoods. In a traditional public forum, a content-neutral regulation of speech is valid if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication; a regulation is narrowly tailored if it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the evil it seeks to remedy.

🔒

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.

Maple Glen, Ohio adopts an ordinance restricting demonstrations on the narrow streets of a quiet subdivision. Lena Ortiz wants to walk with signs on the public roadway there, and the town argues that because the streets are residential and unusually narrow, they are not a traditional public forum.

If Lena challenges the ordinance, which premise is most consistent with the governing First Amendment analysis?

Explanation. The majority held that all public streets are traditional public fora and that no particularized inquiry into a specific street's narrowness or residential character is required. Residential character may affect application of the time, place, and manner test, but it does not change the forum category.