R. A. v. v. City of St. Paul
Headline: Ruling strikes down St. Paul law banning symbols like burning crosses when targeted at race or religion, holding cities may not prohibit speech based solely on its subject and view, affecting local hate-crime rules.
Holding: The Court held the St. Paul bias-motivated ordinance facially unconstitutional because it forbids otherwise proscribable "fighting words" only when they address certain topics like race, religion, or gender.
- Blocks local laws that ban symbols only when aimed at protected groups.
- Protects some provocative "fighting words" from topic-based bans.
- Leaves ordinary criminal laws available to punish acts like cross burning.
Summary
Background
A teenager allegedly taped chair legs into a crude cross and burned it in the fenced yard of a Black family. The city charged him under a St. Paul bias-motivated ordinance that singled out symbols that "arouse anger, alarm or resentment" on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. A trial court dismissed that charge; the Minnesota Supreme Court read the law to reach only Chaplinsky-style "fighting words" and reversed, and the case reached the United States Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court accepted the Minnesota court's narrowing that the ordinance covers fighting words, but held the ordinance facially unconstitutional because it prohibits otherwise allowed fighting words only when they concern certain topics (race, religion, gender, etc.). The majority said the First Amendment bars government from singling out subjects or viewpoints for special suppression; even traditionally proscribable categories cannot be selectively regulated by topic in a way that favors some ideas over others. The Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings.
Real world impact
The decision prevents cities from using topic-specific bans to outlaw provocative symbols or insults solely because they concern race, religion, or gender. It leaves ordinary criminal statutes (for example, arson, threats, or assault) as available tools to punish violent or dangerous acts. The ruling is a facial decision and therefore affects the ordinance's general validity rather than only this one prosecution.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices who agreed the ordinance must fall split on reasoning. Several favored resolving the case as an overbreadth or related First Amendment issue rather than announcing the majority's broader rule against topic-based bans.
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?