Right of Petition and the Supreme Court
The Right of Petition is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which ensures that individuals can request the government for a redress of grievances without fear of retaliation. This right has historical roots in English common law, such as the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights, and has been a significant element in American political thought, influencing key documents like the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court of the United States plays an essential role in interpreting this right, balancing it against other rights and state interests.
Throughout history, various Supreme Court cases have reinforced the importance of the right to petition, protecting activities such as peaceful protests and union picketing, while also imposing certain limitations, particularly in contexts involving military personnel. For instance, the Court ruled in favor of peaceful demonstrations in cases like Edwards v. South Carolina, while upholding restrictions on military petitions in Brown v. Gilnes. Controversies surrounding the right often involve issues of access and equity, especially concerning the influence of wealth in lobbying efforts and the rights of prisoners to petition for redress.
A notable recent case, Doe #1 v. Reed, addressed the public disclosure of petition signers' identities, ultimately affirming that such transparency does not violate First Amendment rights. Overall, the right to petition remains a vital and often debated component of American democratic engagement, reflecting diverse perspectives on access to government and the mechanisms of advocacy.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Right of Petition and the Supreme Court
Description:The right of the common citizen to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Significance:The freedom to petition, one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, is relatively well accepted. The United States Supreme Court, however, does place minor limitations on the manner in which the petitioning can occur.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” As is true of most of what is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, this principle has its origins in English common law. For example, Section 61 of the Magna Carta (1215) describes how barons may exercise their right to petition the Crown for a redress of grievances. The British Bill of Rights (1689) contained the right to petition the king. This is similarly provided for in the Declarations and Resolves of the Continental Congress and in the Declaration of Independence. A principal motivation cited for the rebellion against King George III was that “our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Among the freedoms listed in the First Amendment, which include rights to religion, speech, press, and assembly, the freedom to petition is the least controversial and the most taken for granted. This is perhaps because the exercise of the right to petition is less likely to affect the exercise of other rights.
The American people have consistently exercised their right to petition. Some petitions are formally audited and widely disseminated, and highly sophisticated methods are used to gather signatures. In various states, petitions can be used to place initiatives on the ballot in statewide elections. If the initiative receives a sufficient number of votes in the election, it becomes law. Petitions can also be simple, from handwritten personal letters to a small group of homeowners asking a city council member to address a traffic issue on a particular street. A telephone call can also be considered a petition. The Supreme Court has a less onerous task in defining what a petition is than what obscenity or unprotected speech is, given that a petition is clearly a plea that a government or official take some specified action.
Cases
Often the right to petition has been considered together with other rights, such as that of assembly. In Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), the Court held that orderly union picketing was a protected form of assembly and petition, and thus the state law constraining it was unconstitutional. On the other hand, in United States v. Harriss (1954), the Court upheld a federal law requiring certain lobbyist to register themselves. In Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), the Court overturned the convictions of 180 African American students who had marched peaceably in protest of racial discrimination. The police claimed that because a hostile crowd was waiting for the students at the end of their march, it was necessary to arrest them to prevent a riot. The Court held that even a disorderly crowd, let alone the fear of one, does not trump the right of petition.
In United States v. Grace (1983), the Court overturned a federal law against picketing and handing out leaflets on the steps of the Supreme Court’s building. However, the Court has shown less tolerance toward the right to petition when it touches on military issues. In Brown v. Gilnes (1980), it held that base commanders could prevent military personnel from sending a petition to Congress, and in Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors (1985), the Court upheld a $10 limit on the amount a veteran could pay an attorney to pursue claims with the Veterans Administration, arguing that the limit was not a constraint on the right to petition.
In Burson v. Freeman (1992), a Tennessee law forbidding campaign-related speech within one hundred feet of the entrance to a polling place was overturned. The Court noted that the law was a “content-based restriction on political speech in a public forum.” In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) the Court invalidated an Ohio law that prohibited the distribution of campaign literature that did not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature, and in Talley v. California (1960) the Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafleting. More recently, in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), the Court overturned a Colorado statute that imposed a requirement that petition circulators wear identification badges and organizations initiating petition drives meet strict reporting requirements.
Controversy
People, corporations, and interest groups have the right to pay lobbyists, public relations firms, and advertisers to advocate their causes before the government and in the media. This fact has led to complaints that equal access for all effectively results in greater access for the wealthy. The Court generally has taken a dim view of limitations, even those motivated by “fairness,” upon the right to petition.
The right to petition has met with some controversy regarding prisoners. Generally, conservatives have cited frivolous complaints by prisoners and have argued that prisoners should not have unlimited access to the ears of government officials. Liberals, in turn, have cited cases seeking redress for the gross mistreatment of prisoners to argue that they should not lose their right to petition the government. This controversy is often subsumed in the larger issue of the rights of prisoners to pursue more formal legal claims.
A notable Supreme Court case involving the right to petition occurred in 2010 in Doe #1 v. Reed. The plaintiff, Doe#1, sought to prevent the state of Washington from publicly releasing the names of people and addresses who had signed a petition entitled "Preserve Marriage, Protect Children. The plaintiff argued that no compelling government need was served by the disclosure of those who had signed the petition. In deciding for the defendant, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court that had prevented the release. The Court noted that the First Amendment does not prohibit public disclosure.
Bibliography
"Amdt1.10.2 Doctrine on Freedoms of Assembly and Petition." Constitution Annotated, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-10-2/ALDE‗00000223/#:. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.
BeVier, Lillian R. Campaign Finance “Reform” Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1997.
"Doe #1 v. Reed." Oyez, 29 Apr. 2010, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/09-559. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.
Farber, Daniel A. The First Amendment. New York: Foundation Press, 1998.
Hudson, David L. "John Doe #1 v. Reed (2010)." The First Amendment Encyclopedia, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1499/john-doe-1-v-reed. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.
Murphy, Paul L. The Shaping of the First Amendment, 1791 to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Shiffrin, Steven H., and Jesse H. Choper. The First Amendment: Cases, Comments, Questions. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1996.