Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne

1968-11-19

Headline: Court reverses short-term ex parte ban on a white supremacist group's rally, ruling that officials cannot block political meetings without notice or a hearing

Holding: The Court reversed a ten-day ex parte restraining order barring a white supremacist group's announced rally because officials failed to give notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating First Amendment procedural safeguards.

Real World Impact:

Bars short ex parte bans on rallies without showing notice was impossible.
Requires courts to give speakers notice and a chance to respond.
Limits use of emergency orders to suppress political meetings.

Topics: freedom of speech, public rallies, prior restraint, local government power

Summary

Background

Members of a white supremacist organization held a public rally in Princess Anne, Maryland, on August 6, 1966, delivering loudly amplified, racially inflammatory speeches and announcing a follow-up meeting for the next evening. Local town and county officials obtained an ex parte ten-day restraining order to stop the announced August 7 rally; after a later trial the court also issued a longer injunction that was partly reversed by the state appellate court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the short ex parte restraining order could stand when it barred announced political speech without prior notice to the speakers. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the speech itself could ever be enjoined on the facts, but it held the ten-day order invalid because it was issued without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that prior restraints on speech carry a heavy presumption against their validity and that, in the First Amendment area, adversary presentation and narrowly tailored orders are required unless it is impossible to notify the speakers.

Real world impact

The decision protects the right to hold political rallies from being blocked by emergency court orders issued ex parte when officials have not shown that notice was impossible. Local governments and courts must provide notice or justify why notice cannot be given before issuing short-term bans on public meetings. The ruling did not reach a final answer on whether the specific speeches amounted to unprotected incitement, so the broader legal question remains open.