Cox v. Louisiana (1964)
- Docket
- 24
- Decided
- 1964-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Does Cox's conviction based on violation of the Louisiana statute prohibiting "disturbing the peace" violate his rights to free speech and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Does Cox's conviction based on violation of the Louisiana statute prohibiting "obstructing public passages" violate his rights to free speech and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: Yes. Louisiana's "disturbing the peace" statute is unconstitutional on its face because it is vague in its overly broad scope, and the policy of Baton Rouge law enforcement of giving officers complete discretion in enforcing the "obstructing public passages" statute deprives Cox of his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. In a decision authored by Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the Court was unanimous in finding the "disturbing the peace" statute unconstitutionally vague, and a majority of the Court (7-2) found that Cox's conviction for "obstructing public passages" violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Justices Hugo L. Black and Tom C. Clark each filed concurring opinions as to the "disturbing the peace" statute. Justices Black and Clark also concurred as to the "obstructing public passages" conviction, with Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice John M. Harlan, dissenting as to that issue.