Robert Zwicker v. James Boll
Headline: Students’ Vietnam protest claims rejected as Court affirms dismissal, allowing Wisconsin disorderly-conduct prosecutions to proceed and requiring protesters to seek relief in state courts.
Holding:
- Leaves state criminal prosecutions against student protesters to continue.
- Means protesters must defend themselves in state courts without a federal injunction.
- Raises questions about using disorderly conduct laws to silence political speech.
Summary
Background
A group of University of Wisconsin undergraduate and graduate students protested their school allowing a chemical manufacturer linked to napalm to hold job interviews. They say their actions were peaceful and that they were arrested under Wisconsin’s disorderly conduct law while protesting U.S. policy in Vietnam. The students sued in federal court seeking a declaration that the statute is overly broad and an injunction to stop the state criminal prosecutions pending against them.
Reasoning
A three-judge federal court dismissed the complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court’s per curiam ruling granted the motion to affirm, leaving the dismissal in place and the state prosecutions to continue. The opinion records disagreement among the lower judges about whether federal courts should block state prosecutions and whether a federal injunction is barred by a federal statute limiting such injunctions.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, the decision leaves the students to defend against criminal charges in state court rather than obtaining a federal halt to prosecutions. The complaint alleges officials acted in bad faith and discriminated against the students because of their political views, and it relies on federal civil-rights law to seek relief. The federal court did not hold the hearing the students requested to test those factual claims.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the complaint raised plausible facts of bad-faith enforcement and political discrimination and that the case should be sent back for a full evidentiary hearing to allow cross-examination of officials.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?