| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the United States v. Grace et al., 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute prohibiting demonstrations on Supreme Court grounds was unconstitutional as applied to sidewalks surrounding the court building. The case began when two individuals were charged with violating this law by distributing leaflets on public sidewalks around the court. They challenged their convictions, arguing that these restrictions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. The Supreme Court agreed with them in part, ruling that while Congress had legitimate interests in preserving decorum at the court and preventing interference with its operations, these interests did not justify an absolute ban on all expressive activity on adjacent public sidewalks - traditional public forums for communication and protest. However, it upheld restrictions within areas like courtyards or steps leading directly to courthouse entrances where government interest might be stronger. This decision underscored how even significant governmental interests must be balanced against constitutional protections of freedom of expression in determining permissible limits of protest activities near key national institutions.
In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Grace, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a federal law prohibiting demonstrations on Supreme Court grounds was misguided. He contended that such restrictions were necessary to maintain decorum and order in an institution as important as the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he believed that these regulations did not infringe upon First Amendment rights because they only applied to specific types of expressive conduct within certain areas of government property - namely those which could potentially disrupt court proceedings or compromise its dignity and respectability. In his view, this case was about balancing free speech rights with maintaining appropriate behavior at a significant national institution rather than outright censorship or suppression of expression.