Niemotko v. Maryland
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
Appellants' applications to a City Council for permits to use a city park for Bible talks were denied, for no apparent reason except the Council's dislike for appellants and disagreement with their views. For attempting to hold public meetings and make speeches in the park without permits, they were convicted on charges of disorderly conduct, although there was no evidence of disorder, threat of violence or riot, and they had conducted themselves in a manner beyond reproach. There was no ordinance prohibiting or regulating the use of the park and there were no established standards for the granting of permits; but permits customarily had been granted for similar purposes, including meetings of religious and fraternal organizations. Held: Appellants were denied equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of freedom of speech and religion, contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 269-273.
Printed on p. 268 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(a) The right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a local governing body. P. 272.
Printed on p. 268 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(b) A contention that state and city officials should have the power to exclude religious groups, as such, from the use of public parks was no justification when permits had always been issued for the use of the park by religious organizations. Pp. 272-273.
Printed on p. 268 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(c) A contention that the park was designated as a sanctuary for peace and quiet was no justification when its use for patriotic celebrations by fraternal organizations was permitted. P. 273.
Printed on p. 268 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(d) The lack of standards in the license-issuing "practice" renders that "practice" a prior restraint in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the completely arbitrary and discriminatory refusal to grant the permits was a denial of equal protection. P. 273.
Printed on p. 268 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(e) Since the convictions were based upon the lack of permits which were denied unconstitutionally, the convictions cannot stand. P. 273.
Printed on p. 269 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
- Md. -, 71 A. 2d 9, reversed.
Printed on p. 269 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment Isuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt1.4.3.1, Amdt1.4.3.2, Amdt1.4.4, Amdt1.7.14.3, Amdt1.7.14.4, Amdt1.7.14.5, Amdt1.7.2.3, Amdt1.7.7.1, Amdt1.7.7.2, pp. 1373, 1375, 1387, 1401, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1534, 1540.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951)”:
- cited on 10 pages