Frisby v. Schultz

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Harold H. Fuhrman (argued the cause for the appellants)
Steven Frederick McDowell (argued the cause for the appellees)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
87-168
Appellant: 
Russell Frisby et al.
Appellee: 
Sandra Schultz et al.
Opinion: 
487 U.S. 474 (1988)
Categories: 
abortion, freedom of speech, first amendment

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Frisby v. Schultz , 487 U.S. 474 (1988)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_168)
Facts of the Case: 

Sandra Schultz and Robert Braun both strongly opposed abortion and gathered like-minded citizens together to picket in front of the home of a local doctor who performed abortions. In response, the city of Brookfield, Wisconsin passed a law against all picketing in front of residential homes except for labor disputes. Following the advice of the town attorney, the city amended the law to ban labor picketing as well. The stated purpose of the law was "the protection and preservation of the home." When enacted, Schultz and Braun stopped picketing and filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the law violated the First Amendment. The court declared it would issue a permanent injunction against the law unless it was narrowed in scope. The United States Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the law violated the First Amendment.

Question: 

Does a city ordinance prohibiting picketing in front of residential homes violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion: 

No. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion for a 6-3 court. The Court held that since the street constituted a traditional public forum, the ban must satisfy strict standards in order to remain. Since the ban is "content neutral," "leaves open ample alternative channels of communication," and serves a "significant government interest," the Court ruled that it passed the strict standards and could remain. The city government had a legitimate purpose in protecting the homes of its residents, and did so without favoring one idea over another or eliminating the ability to communicate an idea.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Frisby, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Brennan
Wrote a special concurrence
White
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor