Carey v. Brown

1980-06-20

Headline: A state law banning most picketing at private homes but exempting labor picketing is struck down, blocking content-based residential bans and protecting nonlabor demonstrators’ ability to protest near homes.

Holding: The Court affirmed the appeals court and held that Illinois’ statute unlawfully discriminates by allowing labor picketing while banning other peaceful residential picketing, violating Equal Protection and First Amendment principles.

Real World Impact:

Strikes down state law that allowed picketing at homes only for labor disputes.
Protects nonlabor demonstrators’ right to picket near residences subject to neutral rules.
Leaves open neutral time, place, and manner rules that apply equally to all speech.

Topics: residential picketing, free speech, labor picketing, home privacy, content-based speech rules

Summary

Background

Members of a civil rights group called the Committee Against Racism marched on the sidewalk in front of Mayor Michael Bilandic's home to protest his position on busing. They were arrested under Illinois law, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 21.1-2, which bans picketing of residences but exempts "peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute." The demonstrators pleaded guilty and then sued for a declaratory judgment and an injunction seeking only prospective relief. The District Court denied relief; the Seventh Circuit reversed; the Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appeals court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a law that permits only labor-related picketing at residences is an unlawful content-based restriction on speech. Drawing on Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, the Court concluded that the Illinois statute discriminates based on subject matter because it allows only labor picketing while banning other peaceful protests. That content-based classification required close scrutiny. The State's interest in home privacy and any special solicitude for labor picketing did not justify the exemption. The Court held the exemption was not narrowly tailored to protect residential privacy and therefore violated Equal Protection principles and First Amendment protections. The opinion emphasized that states may adopt neutral time, place, and manner rules but may not grant a public forum to favored topics while excluding others.

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates Illinois’ residential-picketing classification as applied and affirms the Court of Appeals. It limits states’ ability to draw content-based exceptions that favor labor messages over other public-issue demonstrations. Several States had similar statutes; those laws now face constitutional doubt. States may still adopt neutral rules that regulate when and where protests occur so long as they apply equally to all topics.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart joined the opinion and stressed that content discrimination in public forums is forbidden. Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing the law was mainly place-based, defended residential privacy, and would have sustained the statute.