Misplaced Pages

Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

1971 United States Supreme Court case
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 20, 1971
Decided May 17, 1971
Full case nameOrganization for a Better Austin, et al. v. Keefe
Citations402 U.S. 415 (more)91 S. Ct. 1575; 29 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 44; 1 Media L. Rep. 1021
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Holding
Courts cannot prohibit peaceful distribution of pamphlets, unless a heavy burden is met to justify prior restraint.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun
DissentHarlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that courts cannot prohibit peaceful distribution of pamphlets, unless a heavy burden is met to justify prior restraint.

Background

Keefe, a real estate broker, worked in the Chicago neighborhood of Austin. Keefe soon garnered a reputation for his business practices, which were considered to be inflammatory and controversial. Among the asserted practices was that Keefe attempted to generate sales by panicking white homeowners into selling at below-market prices by suggesting that African Americans would soon be living nearby, then selling the houses to African Americans at market value or higher (a practice known as blockbusting).

Some residents of Austin, including the Organization for a Better Austin (OBA), attempted to coerce Keefe to change his tactics by distributing flyers in the town of Westchester, where Keefe resided. Keefe sued, and obtained an injunction preventing the OBA from distributing flyers in Keefe's neighborhood. The OBA argued that their pamphlets were merely informational, but Keefe argued that they were invasions of privacy, and were intimidating.

The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the injunction (115 Ill.App.2d 236, 253 N.E.2d 76).

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, overturned the injunction. The court ruled that peaceful distribution of pamphlets is an important aspect of the First Amendment freedom of speech, and that prior restraint of such peaceful speech requires a very compelling reason.

Justice Harlan dissented solely on the basis that the injunction did not constitute a "final decision" from which an appeal could be taken, and that the Court thus lacked jurisdiction.

See also

References

External links

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Unprotected speech
Clear and
present danger

and imminent
lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats and
threatening the
President of the
United States
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Government grants
and subsidies
Government speech
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance and
political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Categories: