Hirsh v. City of Atlanta

Background

A Georgia trial court issued an injunction (a court order that stops certain actions) preventing at least one applicant from using particular means of public protest. The Supreme Court of Georgia refused to pause that injunction while the case continued on appeal. The applicants asked a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief, and the request was referred to the full Court and denied.

Reasoning

The central question was whether to grant immediate relief to pause the state court’s order. Justice Stevens, concurring with the denial, said courts may treat restrictions on people with a history of unlawful conduct differently from a broad prior restraint on a proposed march by a group without such a history; he would not extend the earlier Skokie decision to this situation. Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by three other Justices, arguing that the earlier Skokie ruling requires treating the stay request as a petition for full review and that the Court should grant review and reverse the denial of a stay.

Real world impact

Because the emergency request was denied, the Georgia injunction remains in effect for now and the particular protest methods prohibited stay blocked. The decision is not a final ruling on the underlying free-speech dispute and could change on later review. The opinions show a clear disagreement among Justices about how to apply past free-speech cases to groups without a history of illegal conduct.

Dissents or concurrances

Included viewpoints matter: Justice Stevens agreed with denying emergency relief but distinguished this case from Skokie, while Justice Kennedy would have taken the case for full review and reversed the stay denial.