Virginia v. Hicks

Background

The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) runs Whitcomb Court, a low‑income housing complex where the city transferred and labeled some streets as private. RRHA posted “no trespassing” signs and adopted a policy letting police bar nonresidents who cannot show a legitimate business or social purpose and arrest anyone who returns after receiving a written barment notice. Kevin Hicks, a nonresident with prior trespass convictions, ignored a written notice, reentered, and was convicted under Virginia’s trespass law; Virginia courts later struck down RRHA’s policy as overbroad.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the RRHA rule was facially invalid for banning too much protected speech. The Court said the overbreadth remedy applies only when a rule prohibits a substantial amount of protected expression compared with its plainly legitimate uses. Here Hicks did not show that the policy, taken as a whole, substantially restricts protected speech: the manager testified leafleting and demonstrations are allowed with prior permission, the barment targets many nonexpressive people, and the written no‑return rule punishes prior trespass, not speech. The Court emphasized that invalid applications can be challenged case‑by‑case rather than by wiping out an entire rule.

Real world impact

The ruling lets housing authorities and police enforce no‑trespass barments when aimed at preventing trespass, while preserving the ability of barred individuals to bring targeted (as‑applied) First Amendment challenges. The Court reversed the Virginia Supreme Court and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred and noted a separate technical issue: how to define the scope of the “law” being tested for overbreadth (written rule alone or combined policies). He agreed the policy here is not substantially overbroad.