Virginia v. Hicks

Media Items
Virginia v. Hicks - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Virginia v. Hicks - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Steven D. Benjamin (Argued the cause for the respondent)
William H. Hurd (Richmond, Virginia, argued the cause for the petitioner)
Michael R. Dreeben (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-371
Petitioner: 
Virginia
Respondent: 
Hicks
Opinion: 
539 U.S. 113 (2003)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Virginia v. Hicks , 539 U.S. 113 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_371)
Facts of the Case: 

The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), a political subdivision of Virginia, owns and operates Whitcomb Court, a low-income housing development. In 1997, the Richmond City Council conveyed Whitcomb Court's streets to the RRHA. Subsequently, the RRHA enacted a policy authorizing the Richmond police to serve notice on any person lacking "a legitimate business or social purpose" for being on the premises and to arrest for trespassing any person who remains or returns after having been notified. After the RRHA gave Kevin Hicks, a nonresident, written notice barring him from Whitcomb Court, he trespassed there and was arrested and convicted. At trial, Hicks claimed that RRHA's policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. The Virginia en banc Court of Appeals vacated his conviction. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

Question: 

Is the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority's trespass policy, which provides for arrest after being served notice for being on the premises without "a legitimate business or social purpose," facially invalid under the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the RRHA's trespass policy is not facially invalid under the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine. Noting that he was not in Whitcomb Court to engage in constitutionally protected speech, the Court reasoned that Hicks had not shown that the RRHA policy prohibited a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to its many legitimate applications. Justice Scalia wrote, "both the notice-barment rule and the 'legitimate business or social purpose' rule apply to all persons who enter the streets of Whitcomb Court, not just to those who seek to engage in expression."

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Virginia, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a regular concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, joined Souter's concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court