 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(April 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Ward v. Rock Against Racism | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 27, 1989 Decided June 22, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Benjamin R. Ward, et al. v. Rock Against Racism |
| Citations | 491U.S.781 (more) 109 S. Ct. 2746; 105L. Ed. 2d 661; 1989U.S. LEXIS 3129; 57 U.S.L.W. 4879 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| A regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate content-neutral interests but does not need to be the least restrictive or the least-intrusive means of doing so. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Stevens |
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), was aUnited States Supreme Court case.
In an opinion byJustice Kennedy, the Court rejected aFirst Amendment challenge to aNew York City regulation that mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians to control the volume of concerts in New York City'sCentral Park. The Court found that the city had a substantial interest in limiting excessive noise and the regulation was "content neutral". The court found that "narrow tailoring" would be satisfied if the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation.
JusticesMarshall,Brennan, andStevens dissented.
In his dissent, Marshall agreed with the majority that the government has a substantial interest in controlling noise but believed that it may not advance that interest by actually asserting control over the amplification equipment and thus over private expression itself. The government has an obligation to adopt the least intrusive restriction necessary to achieve its goals such as enforcing the noise ordinance that has already been adopted.