Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cox Vs Louisiana: Topic Speech and Protest Case No. Case No. / Date Case Name Ponente NAME, J
Cox Vs Louisiana: Topic Speech and Protest Case No. Case No. / Date Case Name Ponente NAME, J
Cox Vs Louisiana: Topic Speech and Protest Case No. Case No. / Date Case Name Ponente NAME, J
CPE, 1-D
RELEVANT FACTS
On December 14, 1961, the Baton Rouge police arrested 23 members of the Congress of Racial
Equality ("CORE") on a charge of illegal picketing.
In response B. Elton Cox, a leading member of CORE, and others planned to march through
parts of Baton Rouge, LA, ending with a demonstration at the courthouse.
An estimated 1,500 to 3,800 protesters demonstrated during the hearings of the 23 jailed
members.
Baton Rouge Police Chief Wingate White confronted the protestors when they arrived at the
courthouse, telling them that they must confine the demonstration "to the west side of the street"
within a designated period of time.
After the group began their demonstration, a sheriff ordered them to disperse. Officers then
forcibly dispersed the demonstration and arrested several demonstrators, including Cox.
Cox was charged with four offenses under Louisiana law: criminal conspiracy, disturbing the
peace, obstructing public passages, and picketing before a courthouse.
He was acquitted of criminal conspiracy but convicted of the other three offenses.
In accordance with Louisiana procedure, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed his "disturbing
the peace" and "obstructing public passages" convictions on certiorari, and the "courthouse
picketing" conviction on appeal, and the court affirmed all three convictions.
Cox appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that all three statutes were
unconstitutionally vague.
This case (No. 24) addresses the "disturbing the peace" and "obstructing public passages"
statutes, while the second case (No. 49) addresses the "courthouse picketing" statute.
Issue Ratio
W/N Cox's conviction YES, Louisiana's "disturbing the peace" statute is unconstitutional on its
based on violation of the face because it is vague in its overly broad scope
Louisiana statute our independent examination of the record, which we are required
prohibiting "disturbing the to make shows no conduct which the State had a right to prohibit
as a breach of the peace.
peace" violate his rights to not riotous is confirmed by a film of the events taken by a television
free speech and assembly news photographer
under the First and
The State argues, however, that while the demonstrators started out to be
University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D
Fourteenth Amendments? orderly, the loud cheering and clapping by the students in response to the
singing from the jail converted the peaceful assembly into a riotous one.[9]
The record, however, does not support this assertion.
key state witness testified that while the singing was loud, it was
not disorderly
It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of
unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs
people to anger.
RULING
For the reasons discussed above the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is reversed.
Reversed.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES