Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley
Headline: City law that banned most picketing near schools but let labor protests continue is struck down, restoring equal opportunity for nonlabor peaceful picketers and blocking content-based exclusions from school sidewalks.
Holding: The Court held that Chicago's ordinance was unconstitutional because it exempted peaceful labor picketing while banning other peaceful picketing, creating an impermissible content-based distinction violating free speech and equal protection.
- Blocks cities from banning peaceful nonlabor picketing near schools while allowing labor picketing.
- Preserves public forum access for protesters regardless of their message.
- Allows narrowly tailored, content-neutral time and place rules to address real disruption.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between the city of Chicago and Earl Mosley, a federal postal worker who for months quietly picketed a Chicago high school with signs alleging racial discrimination. Chicago passed an ordinance banning picketing within 150 feet of a school during school hours but expressly exempted peaceful labor picketing. Mosley stopped picketing and sued, claiming the law violated his free speech and equal protection rights. A federal appeals court ruled for Mosley, and the case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the city could treat labor picketing differently from other peaceful picketing. It held that the ordinance made a content-based distinction by permitting labor-related signs but banning other topics, and that this violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court acknowledged that governments may impose reasonable time, place, and manner rules to prevent disruption, but said any restriction must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored. Because Chicago already allowed peaceful labor picketing, it could not justify a blanket ban on peaceful nonlabor picketing.
Real world impact
The decision prevents cities from creating broad bans that favor one subject of protest over others on public sidewalks near schools. Protesters who address nonlabor topics cannot be excluded simply because their message is different. Cities remain able to adopt narrowly focused rules to prevent real disruption, but they must apply those rules evenhandedly.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices agreed with the result. One concurred while cautioning that some broad First Amendment language in the opinion could be misunderstood when read out of context.
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?