Adderley v. Florida
Adderley v. Florida is a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court upheld the conviction of civil rights protesters for demonstrating on the grounds of a county jail in Tallahassee, Florida. The case arose in the context of the civil rights movement, highlighting the tension between the right to assemble and the government's authority to maintain order in specific locations. Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for the majority, interpreted the First Amendment as allowing the government to impose restrictions on assembly to protect certain public facilities, arguing that the right to assemble is not absolute and must be conducted "peaceably." This decision sparked debate among justices, with notable dissent from Justice William O. Douglas and others who emphasized the importance of protecting free assembly as a fundamental right. Critics of the ruling pointed out that it conflicted with more expansive interpretations of civil liberties, particularly in the context of protest and social justice movements. The case illustrates the complexities of balancing individual rights against governmental interests, particularly in sensitive areas such as law enforcement and public safety. Overall, Adderley v. Florida remains a significant example of the ongoing discourse surrounding First Amendment rights and their limitations.
Subject Terms
Adderley v. Florida
Date: November 14, 1966
Citation: 385 U.S. 39
Issue: Freedom of assembly
Significance: Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black underscored a distinction between speech and action in upholding the conviction of civil rights demonstrators.
Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for a five-member majority, upheld the conviction of civil rights protesters who demonstrated directly on the grounds of a county jail in Tallahassee, Florida, where demonstrations had never been permitted. Reading the First Amendment literally, Black found that it allowed a government to protect jails and courthouses from demonstrations if it did so consistently. Assembly, he argued, is not an absolute right but conditioned by the inclusion of the word “peaceably” in the First Amendment.
Although often regarded as a civil libertarian, Black disappointed many liberals with his opinion in this case. His critics failed to perceive that his so-called “absolute standard” was logically compatible with a distinction between speech, which was absolutely protected, and assembly, which was limited by the Constitution’s use of the word “peaceably” and could never be so absolutely protected. Justice William O. Douglas, Black’s frequent partner in dissent, disagreed with him in this case and was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Abe Fortas.