SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
United States v. Grace
461 U.S. 171 (1983)
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must determine whether 40 USC Section 13k [40 USCS Section 13k] , which prohibits, among other things, the “display [of] any flag, banner or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement” in the United States Supreme Court building and on its grounds violates the First Amendment.
In May 1978 appellee Thaddeus Zywicki, standing on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building, distributed leaflets to passersby. The leaflets were reprints of a letter to the editor of the Washington Post from a United States Senator concerning the removal of unfit judges from the bench. A Supreme Court police officer approached Zywicki and told him, accurately, that Title 40 of the United States Code prohibited the distribution of leaflets on the Supreme Court grounds, which includes the sidewalk. Zywicki left.
In January 1980 Zywicki again visited the sidewalk in front of the court to distribute pamphlets containing information about forthcoming meetings and events concerning “the oppressed peoples of Central America”. Zywicki again was approached by a Court police officer and was informed that the distribution of leaflets on the Court grounds was prohibited by law. The officer indicated that Zywicki would be arrested if the leafleting continued. Zywicki left.
Zywicki reappeared in February 1980 on the sidewalk in front of the Court and distributed handbills concerning oppression in Guatemala. Zywicki had consulted with an attorney concerning the legality of his activities and had been informed that the Superior Court for the District of Columbia had construed the statute that prohibited leafleting, 40 USC Section 13k {40 USCS Section 13k], to prohibit only conduct done with the specific intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice. Zywicki again was told by a Court police officer that he would be subject to arrest if he persisted in his leafleting. Zywicki complained that he was being denied a right that others were granted, referring to the newspaper vending machines located on the sidewalk. Nonetheless, Zywicki left the grounds.
Around noon on March 17, 1980, appellee Mary Grace entered upon the sidewalk in front of the Court and began to display a four foot by two and a half foot sign on which was inscribed the verbatim text of the First Amendment. A Court police officer approached Grace and informed her that she would have to go across the street if she wished to display the sign. Grace was informed that Title 40 of the United States Code prohibited her conduct and that if she did not cease she would be arrested. Grace left the grounds.
On May 13, 1980, Zywicki and Grace filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They sought an injunction against continued enforcement of 40 USC Section 13k [40 USCS Section 13 k] and a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. On August 7, 1980, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellees took an appeal, arguing that the District Court’s action was improper and the Court of Appeals should grant the relief requested in the complaint.
The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was erroneous and went on to strike down Section 13k on its face as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights in a public place. Grace v. Burger, US App DC 375, 665 F2d 1193 (1981).
The Government appealed from the Court of Appeals’ judgment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 457 US 1131, 73 L Ed 2d 1347, 102 S Ct 2955 (1982).
Section 13k prohibits two distinct activities: it is unlawful either “to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds,” or “to display therein any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement.” Each appellee appeared individually on the public sidewalks to engage in expressive activity, and it goes without saying that the threat of arrest to which each appellee was subjected was for violating the prohibition against the display of a “banner or device”. Accordingly, our review is limited to the latter portion of the statute. Likewise, the controversy presented by appellees concerned their right to use the public sidewalks surrounding the Court building for the communicative activities they sought to carry out, and we shall address only whether the proscriptions of Section 13k are constitutional as applied to the public sidewalks.
* * * * *
It is also true that “public places” historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more to be “public forums.” [Citations Omitted]. In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”
* * * * *
We thus perceive insufficient justification for Section 13k’s prohibition of carrying signs, banners, or devices on the public sidewalks surrounding the building. We hold that under the First Amendment the section is unconstitutional as applied to those sidewalks. Of course, this is not to say that those sidewalks, like other sidewalks, are not subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, either by statute or by regulations issued pursuant to 40 USC Section 13l [30 USCS Section 13l].
The judgment below is accordingly affirmed to the extent indicated by this opinion and is otherwise vacated.
So ordered. (Concurring and Dissenting Opinions Omitted)
