Brief Fact Summary. After allegedly burning a cross on a black family’s lawn, the Petitioner, R.A.V. (Petitioner) a teenager, was charged under the St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance (the Ordinance), which prohibits the display of a burning cross, swastika or other symbol that one knows or has reason to know “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others” on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A content-based distinction within a category of expression that can constitutionally be restricted violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution). A city may not prohibit expression of particular ideas on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses. It may prohibit all fighting words or even single out “especially offensive mode of expression,” but it may not proscribe particular “messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance.”
Issue. Whether a municipality may constitutionally enact an ordinance that makes it a crime to place a symbol on public or private property that arouses anger in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender?
Held. The ordinance is facially unconstitutional, even though the Minnesota Supreme Court previously narrowly construed the ordinance, because it prohibits speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.
Concurrence. Concurring opinions were offered by Justices Byron White (J. White), Harry Blackmun (J. Blackmun) and John Paul Stevens (J. Stevens).
J. White: The Ordinance is unconstitutional, but should be decided upon overbreadth grounds.
J. Blackmun: There are no First Amendment values that are disturbed by the Ordinance as written. However, the judgment should stand because the particular ordinance reaches beyond fighting words to speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
J. Stevens: The Ordinance does not favor one side or the other, it merely prevents either side from using communication on the basis of race, color, religion, creed or gender.
Where suppression of speech suggests an attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people, the First Amendment is plainly offended.View Full Point of Law