Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

Cox v. Louisiana - Significance, Protests In Baton Rouge, No Breach Of Peace, Public Passages Not Obstructed, Picketing Before A Courthouse

appellant justices chief speech

Appellant

Reverend B. Elton Cox

Appellee

State of Louisiana

Appellant's Claim

That the convictions under a local breach-of-the-peace law of a minister leading a peaceful protest against segregation policies violated his First Amendment rights of free speech.

Chief Lawyers for Appellant

Nils Douglas (I) and Carl Rachlin (II)

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Ralph L. Roy

Justices for the Court

Hugo L. Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Arthur Goldberg (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Earl Warren

Justices Dissenting

John Marshall Harlan II, Byron R. White

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

18 January 1965

Decision

The two rulings were in favor of Cox and reversed two lower court decisions convicting him of illegal speech and assembly.

Related Cases

  • Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
  • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
  • Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).
  • Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

Curt Flood Trial and Appeals: 1970-72 - Flood's Conditioning, The Playoffs, Three Strikes …, Extra Innings, Suggestions For Further Reading [next] [back] Coolidge v. New Hampshire - The Investigation Of A "particularly Brutal Murder" And The Trial That Followed, The Improper Use Of A Warrant

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 9 years ago

I am not a lawyer. My background is in criminal justice. I was reading this section because I noticed in the Federal Register that the Nuclear Reg Commission has specified in advance of a meeting what public attendees can say, do, or present such as posters or wearing t-shirts. Inasmuch as conduct during these meetings must show some violent or overtly disruptive behavior how can a federal agency beforehand specify what the public can or cannot do in what seems to me to be a violation of constitutional priciple.