Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Adderley v. Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1966 United States Supreme Court case
Adderley v. Florida
Argued October 18, 1966
Decided November 14, 1966
Full case nameAdderley, et al. v. Florida
Citations385U.S.39 (more)
87 S. Ct. 242; 17L. Ed. 2d 149
Case history
PriorAdderley v. State, 175So. 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 aUnited States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.

Background information

[edit]

In 1966, a group of students fromFlorida A&M University demonstrated againstracial segregation in public theaters, and were subsequently arrested.[1] The day after, Harriet Adderley and other FAMU students gathered outside of the [Leon County, Florida|Leon County]] jailhouse to protest their arrest.[1] 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.[citation needed] The sheriff's deputy advised them that they were trespassing on county property and would have to leave or be arrested.[1] The 107 demonstrators refusing to depart were thereafter arrested and convicted under a Florida trespass statute for "trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent."[citation needed] Petitioners contended 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.[citation needed] After the convictions were upheld on appeal at the state level, Adderley and the other defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.[1]

Decision

[edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the trespassing conviction in a 5–4 decision. The majority opinion, authored byJustice 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.[2][3][4]

Dissenting opinion

[edit]

Justice Douglas authored adissenting opinion in whichChief Justice Warren and JusticesBrennan andFortas 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.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcd"SCOTUS set limits on protest activity in Adderley v. Florida".American Bar Association. April 14, 2017. RetrievedNovember 18, 2025.
  2. ^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.
  3. ^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.
  4. ^Adderley v. Florida Oyez Project
  5. ^385 U.S. at 49–57

External links

[edit]
Unprotected speech
Clear and
present danger

andimminent
lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
theheckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines
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
Government grants
and subsidies
Government speech
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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adderley_v._Florida&oldid=1322985147"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp