Adderley v. Florida

1966 United States Supreme Court case
Adderley v. Florida
Argued October 18, 1966
Decided November 14, 1966
Full case nameAdderley, et al. v. Florida
Citations385 U.S. 39 (more)
87 S. Ct. 242; 17 L. Ed. 2d 149
Case history
PriorAdderley v. State, 175 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
Holding
Because a jail facility is not a public forum and a state may regulate the use of its property, the First Amendment rights of the protesters were not violated.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White
DissentDouglas, joined by Warren, Brennan, Fortas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.

Background information

In 1966, a group of students from Florida A&M University demonstrated against racial segregation, and were subsequently arrested. The day after, around 200 FAMU students gathered in front of the Leon County jail to protest their arrest.[citation needed]

Petitioners, 32 students, were members of a group of about 200 who on a nonpublic jail driveway, which they blocked, and on adjacent county jail premises had, by singing, clapping, and dancing, demonstrated against their schoolmates' arrest and perhaps against segregation in the jail and elsewhere. The sheriff, the jail's custodian, advised them that they were trespassing on county property and would have to leave or be arrested. The 107 demonstrators refusing to depart were thereafter arrested and convicted under a Florida trespass statute for "trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent." Petitioners contend that their convictions, affirmed by the Florida Circuit Court and the District Court of Appeal, deprived them of their "rights of free speech, assembly, petition, due process of law and equal protection of the laws" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the trespassing conviction in a 5–4 decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Black, argued that county jails were not public places and so it did not infringe on their right to assembly. The decision argued that states may protect their property and withhold its use from demonstrators for nondiscriminatory reasons such as protection from damage.[1][2][3]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Douglas authored a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Warren and Justices Brennan and Fortas concurred. Douglas argued that the protesters did not engage in or threaten violence or block the entrance of the jail. Public officials should not, according to this vision of the First Amendment, be given discretion to decide which public places can be used for the expression of ideas.[4]

See also

References

  1. ^ Raymond, Walter John (1992). Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms. Lawrenceville, Va.: Brunswick Pub. Corp. pp. 672. ISBN 1-55618-008-X. Adderley v. Florida.
  2. ^ Graham, Barbara Luck; Davis, Abraham L. (1995). The Supreme Court, race, and civil rights. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. 147–148. ISBN 0-8039-7220-2.
  3. ^ Adderley v. Florida Oyez Project
  4. ^ 385 U.S. at 49–57

External links

  • Text of Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) is available from: Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • Case brief: Quimbee
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections