Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFreedom of SpeechPicketingPublic ForumEqual Protection ClauseFirst Amendment

Facts

Chicago enacted an ordinance making it disorderly conduct to picket or demonstrate on a public way within 150 feet of a school while school was in session and for one-half hour before and after, but it exempted the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute. Before the ordinance, Earl Mosley, a postal employee, had for seven months peacefully and quietly picketed Jones Commercial High School on the adjacent public sidewalk with a sign protesting alleged racial discrimination at the school. After seeing notice of the ordinance, Mosley asked the police how it applied to him and was told he would be arrested if he continued. He stopped picketing next to the school and sued, claiming the ordinance violated his constitutional rights.

Issue

May a city prohibit all picketing near schools during school hours while exempting peaceful labor picketing? More specifically, does an ordinance that allows peaceful labor picketing but forbids other peaceful picketing create an impermissible content- or subject-matter-based distinction in violation of the Equal Protection Clause as intertwined with First Amendment interests?

Rule

Government may not grant access to a public forum to some speakers while denying it to others based on the content, message, ideas, or subject matter of their expression. Selective exclusions from a public forum affecting First Amendment interests must be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest, and content-based distinctions among picketers are not justified unless the permitted and prohibited picketing are meaningfully different in relation to that interest.

🔒

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.

Seattle adopts an ordinance making it unlawful to demonstrate on public sidewalks within 200 feet of any city hospital during visiting hours. The ordinance exempts peaceful demonstrations concerning labor disputes involving hospital employees. Nora Kim quietly pickets outside a hospital to protest unequal access to maternity care and is cited.

Is the ordinance likely constitutional as applied to Nora?

Explanation. The ordinance is likely unconstitutional. The governing defect is that the city defines permissible picketing by subject matter, allowing labor-related messages while prohibiting other peaceful messages in the same public place. Under the majority's rule, once government opens a forum to some speakers, it may not exclude others based on content alone. The city may adopt neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to protect substantial interests, but it may not prefer one topic over another without a suitably tailored justification. (Derived from Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972).)