Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America

Supreme Court of Illinois · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPrior RestraintSymbolic SpeechFighting WordsFirst Amendmentsymbolic speech

Facts

Skokie sought to stop the National Socialist Party of America and individual members from engaging in certain conduct during a planned demonstration in the village. According to an affidavit by party leader Frank Collin, 30 to 50 demonstrators would march peacefully for 20 to 30 minutes in front of village hall, wearing uniforms with swastika emblems or armbands and carrying a banner and signs with pro-white free speech messages, while making no derogatory statements, distributing no handbills, obstructing no traffic, and complying with reasonable police instructions. Skokie alleged that many village residents were Jewish, including thousands of concentration camp survivors, and witnesses testified that the planned march caused fear and that a large counterdemonstration was scheduled, with opinion evidence that violence might result. The only issue before the Illinois Supreme Court was whether defendants could be enjoined from displaying the swastika.

Issue

Whether a court may, consistent with the First Amendment, enjoin demonstrators in a peaceful planned march from intentionally displaying the swastika on the theory that it constitutes fighting words or that its display may provoke a hostile audience reaction.

Rule

Use of the swastika in a peaceful public demonstration is symbolic political speech protected by the First Amendment. Its display cannot be enjoined as fighting words unless it falls within the narrow category of personally abusive epithets inherently likely to provoke immediate violent reaction, and anticipation of hostility from viewers does not overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of a prior restraint.

🔒

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 fringe political group in Cleveland announces that 40 members will march peacefully for 25 minutes outside city hall wearing jackets bearing a notorious historical emblem associated with racial supremacy. They promise not to block traffic, distribute leaflets, or shout at bystanders, but the city seeks an injunction banning the emblem because many residents will find it deeply offensive.

Under the majority opinion's rule, is the injunction most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority treated the display of an offensive political emblem on clothing or banners as symbolic expression protected by the First Amendment. Because the city is seeking to stop the expression before it occurs, the order is a prior restraint and bears a heavy presumption of constitutional invalidity. Mere offensiveness is not enough to justify enjoining peaceful symbolic political speech. (Derived from Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America (n.d.).)