Plummer v. City of Columbus
Headline: A Columbus law banning “menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane” spoken language is struck down, reversing a cab driver’s conviction and preventing the ordinance from punishing protected speech.
Holding:
- Stops cities from enforcing broad bans on spoken insults that could include protected speech.
- Allows people to challenge speech laws that might criminalize protected expression.
- Requires governments to narrow or clarify local speech laws before criminal enforcement.
Summary
Background
Appellant is a Columbus cab driver convicted under Columbus City Code §2327.03, which forbids abusing another by using “menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language.” The trial court found he responded to a female passenger with “absolutely vulgar, suggestive and abhorrent, sexually-oriented statements.” The local appeals court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as raising no substantial constitutional question. The United States Supreme Court granted leave to proceed without fees and agreed to review the matter.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a city rule that punishes only spoken words can lawfully be applied without reaching speech the Constitution protects. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Gooding v. Wilson and concluded that, as Ohio courts had construed it, §2327.03 was not limited to clearly unprotected categories and therefore could be used against protected expression. The Court emphasized that a defendant can challenge a law on its face when the law is susceptible of application to others’ protected speech, and it reversed because the ordinance, as written, must be invalid until a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on it.
Real world impact
The decision prevents Columbus from enforcing §2327.03 as written and protects people from criminal prosecution under broadly worded local speech bans. Cities that want to penalize only unprotected speech (for example, true threats or fighting words) must narrow their laws or seek a limiting judicial interpretation before enforcing criminal penalties. Until such narrowing or clarification occurs, the ordinance cannot be applied as it was.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Powell, joined by Justice Rehnquist, argued the driver’s conduct was grossly offensive and that the ordinance clearly covered such verbal assaults, so the overbreadth rule should not block conviction. The Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun dissented for reasons they stated in related earlier opinions.
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?