CASE BRIEF: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992

Title and citation

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377


Facts

In 1990 the city of St. Paul, MN adopted a hate speech ordinance that prohibited placing graffiti or other forms of offensive items such as a burning cross or swastika, which would likely incite anger or create a hostile environment, on public or private property. A minor, Robert Viktora, was charged with violating the ordinance by participating in a cross-burning on the property of an African American family. Viktora did not argue with the facts of the case but challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional because it censored expressive conduct.


Issues

1. Does the ordinance censor expressive conduct?


Held

1. Yes; the code was overbroad and censored selectively, and content-based speech codes are not constitutional.


Reasoning

The Supreme Court decided that the ordinance was overbroad and based on content (it only included specific, racial and religious fighting words and not others, such as political affiliation and did not ban fighting words against bigots, only by them).


Decision

Though lower courts dismissed the case and ruled that the city ordinance was not overbroad, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Robert Viktora (R.A.V.).


Significance

This case set the precedent against content-based speech codes.