R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota
United States Supreme Court
505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
R.A.V. (defendant), a juvenile, and several other teenagers burned a wooden cross on the lawn of a home owned by a black family. R.A.V. was arrested for violating the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance (the ordinance), enacted by the City of St. Paul, Minnesota (plaintiff) to promote human rights for groups that had historically been subject to discrimination. The ordinance prohibited the placement of hateful symbols, including burning crosses, “which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouse . . . anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” R.A.V. moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the ordinance was facially invalid under the First Amendment. Specifically, R.A.V. argued the ordinance was an unconstitutionally overbroad content-based regulation of speech. The trial court granted the motion. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the language of the statute regarding arousing “anger, alarm or resentment” limited the regulation to “fighting words,” which are not protected speech. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
