United States v. Grace

1983-04-20

Headline: Court limits ban on signs and leaflets by striking down part of federal law that blocked displaying banners or distributing leaflets on sidewalks around the Supreme Court, protecting ordinary sidewalk speech.

Holding: The Court held that 40 U.S.C. § 13k may not be applied to the public sidewalks around the Supreme Court, so officials cannot arrest people for peacefully displaying signs or distributing leaflets there.

Real World Impact:

Prevents arrests for peaceful sign-carrying on Supreme Court perimeter sidewalks.
Protects distributing leaflets and handbills on those sidewalks.
Keeps open reasonable time, place, and manner rules elsewhere.

Topics: free speech, sidewalk protests, leafletting and picketing, court grounds restrictions

Summary

Background

Two people — Thaddeus Zywicki, who handed out leaflets, and Mary Grace, who held a sign printed with the First Amendment — stood on the public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court and engaged in peaceful expressive activity. Court police told each they would be arrested under a federal law, 40 U.S.C. § 13k, which bans displaying flags, banners, or devices on the Supreme Court building and grounds (a definition the statute extends to the sidewalks). The two sued, seeking to block enforcement of the law.

Reasoning

The Court first decided the law covered the conduct at issue. It then asked whether the perimeter sidewalks are traditional public places for speech. The Justices concluded those sidewalks are ordinary public forums. A total ban on carrying signs or leaflets there was not closely tied enough to the government interests offered (order, decorum, or protecting courts from outside influence). For that reason, the Court ruled § 13k may not be applied to the public sidewalks.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents the government from enforcing § 13k against people who peacefully display signs or hand out leaflets on the sidewalks immediately surrounding the Court. The decision leaves open the possibility of reasonable time, place, and manner limits, and it does not fully resolve enforcement inside the building or other restricted areas.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall argued the statute should be struck down entirely because it chills speech. Justice Stevens would have read the law more narrowly to avoid broad constitutional ruling.