Frisby v. Schultz
1988 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Frisby v. Schultz?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated.[1] The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral.[1]
Quick Facts Frisby v. Schultz, Argued April 20, 1988 Decided June 27, 1988 ...
Frisby v. Schultz | |
---|---|
Argued April 20, 1988 Decided June 27, 1988 | |
Full case name | Russell Frisby et al. V. Sandra Schultz et al. |
Citations | 487 U.S. 474 (more) 108 S. Ct. 2495; 101 L. Ed. 2d 420 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Holding | |
The Supreme Court upheld the state ordinance because it is "content neutral," "leaves open ample alternative channels of communication," and serves a "significant government interest." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy |
Concurrence | White |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
Dissent | Stevens |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Close