Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1965)
- Docket
- 5
- Decided
- 1965-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: (1) Is an ordinance making it an offense to stand, loiter or walk on any city sidewalk in a way that obstructs others’ free passage over that sidewalk unconstitutional as applied to Shuttlesworth? (2) Is an ordinance making it an offense to stand or loiter on a city sidewalk after a request by a policeman to “move on” unconstitutional as applied to Shuttlesworth? Conclusion: Yes and yes. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Potter Stewart held that while both portions of the statute were facially constitutional, the trial court unconstitutionally applied the “obstructing free passage” portion of the ordinance. Justice Stewart noted that in Phifer v. City of Birmingham , the Alabama Court of Appeals later interpreted the statute to apply only when a person who obstructs free passage on a sidewalk also refuses to obey a request by an officer to move on. The trial court did not have this interpretation available to it, and it made no findings of fact and rendered no opinion. Justice Stewart inferred from this that the trial court may have applied an unconstitutionally literal interpretation of the statute, where either obstructing free passage on the sidewalk or disobeying a police order to move on would be sufficient for a finding of guilt. Justice Stewart also held that the trial court unconstitutionally applied the "move on" portion of the ordinance to Shuttlesworth. Justice Stewart again referred to Phifer , where the Court held that the police order in question must be related to directing vehicular traffic because that section of the Birmingham General City Code was related to regulating vehicular traffic. In contrast, the record for Shuttlesworth’s case did not contain any evidence that Patrolman Byars was directing vehicular traffic. Justice William Douglas concurred. He reasoned that Shuttlesworth could not have been blocking traffic when he was arrested because all other members of his group had left by that point. Justice Abraham Fortas also concurred, joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Justice Fortas would have finally reversed the conviction. While agreeing that the statute is constitutional on its face, he argued that there was no way the facts could be construed to show that Shuttlesworth and his group were actually obstructing the sidewalk. He accused Birmingham of using the statute as a pretext to lock up a notorious civil rights activist.