Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Kunz v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1951 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFree ExercisePrior RestraintPermittingprior restraintadministrative discretion

Facts

New York City had an ordinance making it unlawful to hold public worship meetings on the streets without first obtaining a permit from the police commissioner. Kunz, an ordained Baptist minister who preached under the auspices of "Outdoor Gospel Work," had received a permit in 1946, but that permit was later revoked after a hearing; he did not seek review of that revocation. He applied again in 1947 and 1948, but each application was disapproved without explanation. In 1948 he was arrested for speaking at Columbus Circle without a permit, and his conviction rested on his failure to possess a permit for that year.

Issue

Whether New York City may require a permit for religious street meetings where the ordinance, as interpreted and applied, gives the police commissioner discretionary power to refuse a permit without any standards stated in the ordinance. More specifically, whether that scheme is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rule

A municipality may regulate use of streets and parks to prevent serious interference with their normal use, but it may not establish a licensing system that vests an administrative official with discretion to grant or withhold permits for speech on broad or undefined criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places. A permit scheme lacking appropriate standards to guide official action is an invalid prior restraint on First Amendment rights.

🔒

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.

The city of Cleveland requires a permit before anyone may give a religious address in a public square. The ordinance says the public safety director may approve or deny applications as the director "deems proper," and it lists no criteria for denial.

If a pastor is convicted for speaking in the square without a permit after her application was denied, what is the strongest constitutional objection to the ordinance under the governing rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that streets and parks are held in trust for assembly and communication, and government may not require a permit for speech there under a scheme that gives an administrative official discretion to grant or withhold permission without appropriate standards. The constitutional defect is the advance suppression of speech through standardless official discretion, which makes the scheme an invalid prior restraint.