Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPrior RestraintAppellate ProcedureFirst Amendmentprior restraintinjunctionstay pending appeal

Facts

On April 29, 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County enjoined petitioners from marching, walking, or parading in National Socialist Party uniforms within Skokie. The injunction also barred them from displaying the swastika on or off their persons and from distributing pamphlets or displaying materials that incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry or against persons of any faith, ancestry, race, or religion. After lower Illinois courts refused to stay the injunction and the Illinois Supreme Court also denied a stay and expedited review, petitioners claimed that the injunction would deprive them of First Amendment rights during the appellate process. The normal appellate process might take a year or more to complete.

Issue

Whether the Illinois Supreme Court's denial of a stay of an injunction restricting expressive activity was reviewable as a final judgment and, if so, whether the State could leave the injunction in force during appellate review without providing immediate appellate review. More specifically, the question was whether the First Amendment required strict procedural safeguards against this kind of restraint.

Rule

When a State seeks to impose a restraint of this kind on expression, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. If the State does not provide such immediate review, it must instead allow a stay of the injunction during the appellate process.

🔒

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.

A state trial court in Columbus, Ohio, entered an injunction barring the Lakefront Justice Coalition from handing out protest flyers in a downtown plaza. Ohio's appellate courts refused to expedite the appeal, and the ordinary appeal schedule would likely take nine months; they also denied the group's request for a stay.

Under the controlling rule, what is the strongest constitutional objection to leaving the injunction in force during the appeal?

Explanation. The majority held that when a State seeks to impose this kind of restraint on expression, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. If the State does not provide such immediate review, it must instead allow a stay. The defect here is procedural: the State denied both expedited review and a stay while the restraint remained in effect.