Colten v. Kentucky

Background

A college student, Colten, and about 15–20 other students held a small demonstration at the Blue Grass Airport and formed a procession of cars along the access road. A state trooper stopped the lead car for an expired license, police asked the group to disperse several times, and Colten refused to leave when ordered. He was arrested under Kentucky’s disorderly conduct law, tried in an inferior (Quarterly) Court and fined $10, then sought a trial de novo in the circuit court, where he was convicted again and fined $50. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court took the case to consider two issues.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Colten’s conduct was protected speech and whether Kentucky’s two‑tier trial de novo system violated fair procedure or barred an increased sentence. The majority found that Colten’s refusal to move on was not protected by the First Amendment as presented, that the Kentucky statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as the state courts had narrowly construed it, and that the de novo system does not inherently create the kind of judicial vindictiveness that North Carolina v. Pearce sought to prevent. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction and the enhanced sentence imposed after the de novo trial.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves in place a state’s ability to order dispersal at roadside incidents and to convict those who refuse when the conduct is not shown to be protected speech. It also allows Kentucky’s two‑tier system to continue to permit a fresh trial in the superior court with the possibility of a larger penalty. This decision affects people involved in small public demonstrations and defendants using de novo trials in similar state systems.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissenting Justices argued otherwise: one said the speech was peaceful and should be protected, and the other argued Pearce’s protection against vindictive sentencing should apply here.