| Gregory v. Chicago | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 10, 1968 Decided March 10, 1969 | |
| Full case name | Dick Gregory, et al. v.City of Chicago |
| Citations | 394U.S.111 (more) 89 S. Ct. 946; 22L. Ed. 2d 134; 1969U.S. LEXIS 2295 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari to theSupreme Court of Illinois,39 Ill. 2d 47, 233N.E.2d 422 (1968) |
| Holding | |
| Gregory and others were improperly convicted of disorderly conduct based on the disorderly behavior of bystanders to their First Amendment-protected demonstration. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Warren, joined unanimously |
| Concurrence | Black, joined by Douglas |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends.I,XIV | |
Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned thedisorderly conduct charges againstDick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.[1]
Social activists, including comedianDick Gregory, protested against school segregation in Chicago, Illinois. Twelve years earlier, inBrown v. Board of Education, theU.S. Supreme Court ruledschool segregationunconstitutional. The protesters marched from Chicago's city hall to the mayor's residence in the neighborhood of Bridgeport. After the march concluded, white bystanders began to act unruly and heckle the protesters; when they could not contain the hecklers' activity, police asked the protesters to disperse.[2] The protesters did not disperse and were consequently arrested, and subsequently convicted by a jury, of violating Chicago's disorderly conduct ordinance. The protesters appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. That court upheld their conviction, holding that the protesters' refusal to obey the police order justified the convictions.[3] Aided by theACLU, the protesters appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the conviction for several reasons:
JusticeHugo Black, in a concurring opinion, argued that arresting demonstrators as a consequence of unruly behavior of bystanders would amount to a "heckler's veto."[4]
This article incorporatespublic domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by thefederal judiciary of the United States.