Brief Fact Summary. Petitioners, Walker et al., challenged a judgment finding them in contempt of court for violating an injunction. Petitioners argue that the injunction stems from their violation of unconstitutional ordinances.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Once an injunction is issued, a party needs to challenge the constitutionality of the law in court rather than violate the injunction and be in contempt.
Issue. The issue is whether Petitioners can be sentenced for contempt for violating an injunction based upon an ordinance that may be unconstitutional.
Held. The majority of the United States Supreme Court affirmed the contempt ruling, arguing that cities and states should have the freedom to maintain order through injunctions. If Petitioner wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinances at issue, they should have done so through the courts.
The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend.View Full Point of Law
The second dissent by Justice Douglas notes the destructive potential of giving a party a procedural tool to circumvent the traditional pathway to challenging an unconstitutional law. Here, the majority is allowing the law to be placed in an injuctive order which now grants a party the authority to hold the violating party in contempt.
Discussion. The injunction itself would give standing to Petitioners, but the ruling gives an additional, powerful procedural roadblock to states and municipalities to uphold unconstitutional laws.