Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between local ordinances and First Amendment rights. The case arose in Jersey City, New Jersey, where a local ordinance mandated permits for public meetings and literature distribution. Mayor Frank Hague, known for his resistance to labor unions, enforced this ordinance to arrest union members who attempted to distribute pamphlets and denied them permits for public speaking. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-2 vote that the city ordinance was unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of public forums for free expression. Justice Owen J. Roberts articulated that while officials can regulate public spaces, they cannot restrict access based on the content of ideas. This ruling reinforced the concept that the freedom to petition is protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extending First Amendment rights to state and local jurisdictions. The case is pivotal in understanding the legal protections surrounding public assembly and free speech in the United States.
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
Date: June 5, 1939
Citation: 307 U.S. 496
Issues: Public forum doctrine; right of petition
Significance: The Supreme Court introduced the public forum doctrine, which required that streets, parks, and other public places must be accessible for public assembly and the discussion of public issues.
A local ordinance of Jersey City, New Jersey, required a permit in order to hold public meetings or distribute literature in public areas. Mayor Frank Hague, an opponent of labor unions, had union members arrested for passing out pamphlets, and he refused to grant members the necessary permit for speaking on public property. By a 5-2 vote, the Supreme Court found that the city ordinance was unconstitutional. Speaking for a ruling plurality, Justice Owen J. Roberts defended the public forum doctrine in terms of the privileges, immunities, and liberties of citizens. Officials might regulate the use of public places in ways “consonant with peace and good order,” but not abridge or arbitrarily deny their use because of disagreement with the content of the ideas discussed. The Court explicitly incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of petition into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it binding on state and local governments.
