Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Grace

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublic Forumpublic sidewalksSupreme Court groundspublic forumcontent-neutral

Facts

Thaddeus Zywicki was repeatedly stopped by Supreme Court police from distributing leaflets on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building and was told he would be arrested if he continued. Mary Grace was likewise told she would be arrested if she continued displaying a sign bearing the text of the First Amendment on the same sidewalk. The statute invoked, 40 U.S.C. § 13k, prohibited displaying any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement in the Supreme Court building or grounds, and the statutory definition of the grounds included the perimeter sidewalks. The case concerned only the application of that display prohibition to the public sidewalks surrounding the Court.

Issue

May 40 U.S.C. § 13k constitutionally be applied to prohibit leafletting and sign display on the public sidewalks forming the perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds? More specifically, are those sidewalks public forums in which the statute's total ban on the specified expressive activity violates the First Amendment?

Rule

Public sidewalks are traditional public forums and do not lose that status merely because they abut government property dedicated to a different use or because Congress includes them within the statutory definition of government grounds. In a public forum, the government may impose reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, but an absolute ban on protected expressive activity is invalid unless sufficiently justified; § 13k's total ban on displaying signs or leaflets on the perimeter sidewalks could not be sustained on the interests asserted here.

🔒

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.

Congress enacts a statute providing that the sidewalks forming the outer border of a federal archives complex in Philadelphia are part of the "archives grounds" and forbids all display of signs on those sidewalks. Lena Ortiz stands on one of those perimeter sidewalks with a poster criticizing government secrecy, and officers order her to leave or be arrested.

If Lena challenges the statute as applied to the perimeter sidewalk, what is the strongest argument in her favor?

Explanation. The majority held that public sidewalks are traditional public forums and do not lose that status simply because they abut government property or are included by statute within government grounds. Where the perimeter sidewalks are indistinguishable from other city sidewalks and there is no fence, separation, or indication of a special enclave, they retain public-forum status. A total ban on signs there therefore requires far stronger justification than mere statutory designation.