Frisby v. Schultz

Background

A small Wisconsin suburb passed a law making it illegal to picket “before or about” any residence after protesters repeatedly demonstrated outside a doctor’s home. The protesters, opposing abortion, gathered in groups that ranged from about 11 to more than 40 people on several occasions. The town replaced an earlier ordinance with a flat ban and threatened enforcement; the protesters sued to stop the ban and a lower court temporarily blocked enforcement.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the ban was an acceptable limit on speech in public streets. The majority read the ordinance narrowly — as forbidding focused picketing directed at a single home — and found that such a narrow reading protects residential privacy, is neutral toward message, and leaves other ways to communicate open. For those reasons the Court reversed the lower court and upheld the ordinance as a constitutionally permissible restriction when so limited. Justice White concurred in the result but warned against relying solely on the town attorney’s statements about enforcement. Justices Brennan and Stevens dissented, arguing the ban sweeps too broadly and that less restrictive rules (limits on size, time, or noise) could address the problem.

Real world impact

The decision permits towns to prohibit targeted, household-directed picketing when the law is read and enforced as limited to single residences. Protesters who wish to reach a broader audience must rely on other methods, such as marching, door-to-door outreach, literature distribution, or the mail. The concurrences and dissents signal continued dispute about enforcement details and the risk that a broadly worded ordinance could be misapplied.

Dissents or concurrances

Dissenting opinions emphasize that the ordinance, as written, bans more speech than necessary and that local officials may have too much discretion in enforcement.