Carey v. Brown

LOCATION: Turner Turnpike

DOCKET NO.: 79-703
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 447 US 455 (1980)
ARGUED: Apr 15, 1980
DECIDED: Jun 20, 1980

Edward Burke Arnolds - for appellees
Ellen G. Robinson - for appellant, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court

Facts of the case


Media for Carey v. Brown

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 15, 1980 (Part 1) in Carey v. Brown

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 15, 1980 (Part 2) in Carey v. Brown

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Arnolds you may continue.

Edward Burke Arnolds:

Mr. Chief Justice thank you, may it please the Court.

A couple of questions Your Honors were addressed to Ms. Robinson that I would I like to comment on.

Mr. Justice Stewart, I believe you asked a question about the Gregory case.

Potter Stewart:


Edward Burke Arnolds:

And I would simply like to note that it's clear from the appendix in the Gregory case that the marching parading in that case took place in exactly the same neighborhood as in this case.

That the -- while not the same Mayor was involved, the Mayor of the city of Chicago was a -- the residence of the Mayor of the city of Chicago was the target of the picketing and the -- in addition to that the message was the same that you have picketing concerning desegregation of the Chicago public schools.

Potter Stewart:

That was a different Mayor but they live in the same neighborhood?

Edward Burke Arnolds:

That's correct.

The --

Warren E. Burger:

Was the -- was there a parade permit in the Gregory case of any kind?

Edward Burke Arnolds:

I -- I -- I'm not sure Your Honor but I don't believe so.

I don't believe the permit was involved.

I'm maybe wrong about that.

Warren E. Burger:

Wouldn't it make a difference if there was an ordinance which said you can do something if you get a parade permit but impliedly you can't do that if you don't get a permit.

Edward Burke Arnolds:

I -- I think that it's -- that the parade permit ordinance would be constitutional -- could be constitutional if the discrimination -- if -- if there -- if it were no way based on content, in other words, if the -- if a permits were awarded in a totally content free manner.

I think if the -- if the permit ordinance required that the content of the message be reviewed before the permit was granted --

Warren E. Burger:

But permit ordinances are usually neutral in the sense of simply requiring notice so that they can handle traffic problems and that sort of thing.

Edward Burke Arnolds:

And that I believe that when they are, they are generally upheld as being constitutional.

Warren E. Burger:

No parade permit has ever been upheld here as it that mentioned as the matter of content?

Edward Burke Arnolds:

Not that I am aware, no sir.

What I wish to point out about the Gregory case was that this Court in Gregory specifically said that if the parading and marching in that case was peaceful.

It was certainly protected by the Fist Amendment.

And the State has conceded in this case that both of past conduct of the points of appellees and their proposed conduct is peaceful, therefore, we conclude that under Gregory, their conduct is protected by the Fist Amendment.

Mr. Justice Stevens I believe you asked a question going to the place of business exception in the statute.

It is not clear, our position is that it is not clear from the statute just exactly what picketing is allowed at the place of business.

For example, if the high raise Lakepoint Towers has a restaurant in the building, it is clear that the restaurant maybe picketing, and not only for a labor matters but for other matters.

It is not clear whether the residences that are also located in Lakepoint Towers maybe picketed by for anything other than labor disputes.

And I think it is near as it clear if a high raise contains only condominiums or apartments whether that -- whether or not that building is a place of business.

In addition, I don't believe it's clear whether the --