Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Saia v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1948 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPrior RestraintFourteenth Amendmentprior restraintuncontrolled discretionlicensing

Facts

Appellant, a Jehovah's Witness minister, had previously obtained permission from the Chief of Police to use sound equipment mounted on his car to amplify religious lectures delivered at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When that permit expired, he applied for another but was refused because complaints had been made. He then used the equipment on four occasions without a permit and was prosecuted under the ordinance. The ordinance allowed public dissemination through radio loud-speakers of news, matters of public concern, and athletic activities only with permission from the Chief of Police.

Issue

Whether a city ordinance that forbids use of sound amplification devices unless the Chief of Police grants permission violates the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment.

Rule

A law imposing a permit requirement on speech-related activity is an unconstitutional prior restraint when it places the right to speak in the uncontrolled discretion of a public official and is not narrowly drawn with definite standards, such as regulation of hours, places, or sound volume.

🔒

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 Toledo adopts an ordinance making it unlawful to use any amplified sound device in a public square unless the director of public safety gives written permission. The ordinance lists no criteria for granting or denying permission. Nina Patel applies to use a portable speaker for a labor-rights rally and is denied without explanation.

If Nina challenges the ordinance on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, what is the strongest argument that the ordinance is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that a permit system for sound amplification is facially invalid when it makes the right to be heard depend on permission from an official without prescribed standards. The constitutional defect is the prior restraint created by uncontrolled discretion, not merely proven viewpoint discrimination in a particular case.