People v. Rubin
California Courts of Appeal
158 Cal. Rptr. 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
The American Nazi Party planned to march through a community in Skokie, Illinois in which approximately 7,000 Jewish survivors of the Holocaust lived, on Adolph Hitler’s birthday. The national director of the Jewish Defense League, Irving Rubin (defendant), held a press conference in which he announced that the Defense League planned to bring thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish counter-protesters to the community to physically block the Nazis from marching there. Rubin stated that the Defense League would pay for round-trip transportation for any able-bodied and willing counter-protester from anywhere in the country. Rubin then announced that the Defense League would pay $500 to any individual who killed, maimed, or seriously injured any member of the American Nazi Party in defense of the community. Rubin characterized this policy as a blanket offer to any person, so long as the individual could prove that it occurred in defense of the community. Rubin was charged with solicitation of murder. Rubin filed a motion to set aside the charge, alleging that there was no evidence sufficient to support a charge of solicitation of murder, and that his advocacy of crime speech was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion as to the sufficiency of probable cause, but set aside the charge based upon First Amendment grounds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fleming, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.