Coates v. Cincinnati
Encyclopedia
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611
(1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held that a local city ordinance which made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy passersby was unconstitutional.
passed an ordinance
which provided that:
Coates, a student, participated in a demonstration and was convicted of violating the ordinance. Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, alleging that the ordinance and his conviction violated the First and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution
. Coates argued that the ordinance interfered with the first amendment protection of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and that the ordinance as written was so vague that it violated the due process
guarantees of the fourteenth amendment. Relying on Cameron v. Johnson, a divided court found that "annoying" was not unconstitutionally vague and affirmed Coates' conviction.
, writing for the majority, explained that as the ordinance specified no standard of conduct at all (annoying conduct being different things to different people), "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning." Given its breadth, the ordinance would give the city the power to punish conduct which would otherwise be constitutionally protected. Additionally, the ordinance violated the constitutionally protected right of free assembly, a core guarantee which could not be abridged merely because someone might be "annoyed."
wrote a separate opinion, neither concurring nor dissenting. While agreeing with the majority that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that a vague law could constitute a due process violation, Black did not find that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional
. Black argued that the ordinance could have both constitutional and unconstitutional applications, and that the factual record from the trial was insufficient to determine which had occurred. Black would have vacated and remanded the case.
dissented, agreeing with Black that the ordinance was not facially unconstitutional. White noted that "as a general rule, when a criminal charge is based on conduct constitutionally subject to proscription and clearly forbidden by a statute, it is no defense that the law would be unconstitutionally vague if applied to other behavior." It was not clear what conduct Coates had engaged in, and it might have been conduct within the power of the city to punish.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that a local city ordinance which made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy passersby was unconstitutional.
Background
In 1956 Cincinnati, OhioCincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati is a city in the U.S. state of Ohio. Cincinnati is the county seat of Hamilton County. Settled in 1788, the city is located to north of the Ohio River at the Ohio-Kentucky border, near Indiana. The population within city limits is 296,943 according to the 2010 census, making it Ohio's...
passed an ordinance
Local ordinance
A local ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal code.-United States:In the United States, these laws are enforced locally in addition to state law and federal law.-Japan:...
which provided that:
"It shall be unlawful for three or more persons to assemble, except at a public meeting of citizens, on any of the sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots or mouths of alleys, and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by, or occupants of adjacent buildings. Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), or be imprisoned not less than one (1) nor more than thirty (30) days or both."
Coates, a student, participated in a demonstration and was convicted of violating the ordinance. Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, alleging that the ordinance and his conviction violated the First and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. Coates argued that the ordinance interfered with the first amendment protection of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and that the ordinance as written was so vague that it violated the due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
guarantees of the fourteenth amendment. Relying on Cameron v. Johnson, a divided court found that "annoying" was not unconstitutionally vague and affirmed Coates' conviction.
Opinion
By a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down the Cincinnati ordinance, finding that it "is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct." Justice StewartPotter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
, writing for the majority, explained that as the ordinance specified no standard of conduct at all (annoying conduct being different things to different people), "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning." Given its breadth, the ordinance would give the city the power to punish conduct which would otherwise be constitutionally protected. Additionally, the ordinance violated the constitutionally protected right of free assembly, a core guarantee which could not be abridged merely because someone might be "annoyed."
Black's opinion
Justice BlackHugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
wrote a separate opinion, neither concurring nor dissenting. While agreeing with the majority that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that a vague law could constitute a due process violation, Black did not find that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional
Facial challenge
In the context of American jurisprudence, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void...
. Black argued that the ordinance could have both constitutional and unconstitutional applications, and that the factual record from the trial was insufficient to determine which had occurred. Black would have vacated and remanded the case.
Dissent
Justice WhiteByron White
Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White won fame both as a football halfback and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, he served until his retirement in 1993...
dissented, agreeing with Black that the ordinance was not facially unconstitutional. White noted that "as a general rule, when a criminal charge is based on conduct constitutionally subject to proscription and clearly forbidden by a statute, it is no defense that the law would be unconstitutionally vague if applied to other behavior." It was not clear what conduct Coates had engaged in, and it might have been conduct within the power of the city to punish.