*1 UNITED STATES et al. v. GRACE et al. Argued No. 81-1863. January 18, April 20, 1983 Decided *2 J., Burger, C. Court, in which opinion of the White, J., delivered O’Connor, JJ., Rehnquist, Powell, and Blackmun, Brennan, and 188, filed J., p. Stevens, post, p. joined. Marshall, J., post, dissenting part. opinions concurring part With Lee appellants. Solicitor General cause argued McGrath, Attorney General Assistant him on the briefs were Anthony Strauss, A. Deputy David Getter, General Solicitor Steinmeyer, and Marc Richman. J. K. D. Graber argued for appellees.
Sebastian the cause Brad Townsend A. brief were Norman him on the With ley S. Stetler.* Court. the opinion delivered White
Justice 13k, U. S. C. determine whether must In case we “display things, [of] other among prohibits, which pub- into adapted designed or device banner, flag, filed a S. Sims Hut, Jr., Spitzer, B. and Charles Arthur * A. Stephen urging amici curiae et al. Union as brief for American Liberties Civil affirmance. League for the Sidney Wolinsky filed a brief Robert M. L. Gnaizda and amicus curiae. Latin Citizens of United American any party, organization, he notice or movement”1 in the Supreme United States grounds, Court and on its violates the First Amendment. HH May appellee
In Zywicki, standing Thaddeus Supreme sidewalk front of building, Court distributed passersby. leaflets to reprints The leaflets were of a letter Washington editor of the Post from a United States concerning Senator judges the removal of unfit from the Supreme police bench. A approached Zywicki Court officer accurately, him, told Title 40 of the United States prohibited Code the distribution of leaflets on the grounds, Zywicki which includes the sidewalk. left. *3 January Zywicki again In visited the sidewalk in front pamphlets of the containing Court to distribute information forthcoming meetings concerning op- about and events “the pressed peoples Zywicki again ap- America.” Central was proached by police officer and Court was informed that the distribution on the prohibited of leaflets Court by Zywicki law. The officer indicated that would be ar- leafletting Zywicki if the rested continued. left.
Zywicki reappeared February in 1980 on the sidewalk concerning op- front of the Court and distributed handbills pression Zywicki in Guatemala. an had consulted with at- torney concerning legality of his activities and had been Superior informed that the for the District of Court Colum- prohibited bia had leafletting, construed the statute § prohibit only S. C. specific U. conduct 13k, to done with the impede, intent to or obstruct the influence, administration of provision part 1 The issue this case of a statutory at scheme enacted care, govern protection, in 1949 policing Supreme Court grounds. entirety provides: In 13k its parade, stand, “It shall be unlawful or processions move in or assem- blages in the Court Building grounds, display any or to therein flag, banner, designed adapted device into notice party, organization, or movement.” 63 Stat. 617. justice.2 Zywicki again by police was told a Court officer subject persisted if he would be to arrest he in his leafletting. Zywicki complained being that he was denied a right granted, referring newspaper that others were vending machines located on the sidewalk. Nonetheless, Zywicki grounds. left the appellee Mary
Around noon on March en- Grace upon began tered sidewalk front of the Court and display sign a four foot two and a half foot on which was inscribed the verbatim text of the First Amendment. A police approached officer Grace and informed her that go she would have to across the street if she wished to dis- play sign. Grace was informed that Title 40 of the prohibited United States Code her conduct if and that she did grounds. not cease she would be arrested. Grace left the May Zywicki present On 13, 1980, filed and Grace suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colum- They sought injunction against bia. an continued enforce- declaratory judgment ment of 40 U. S. C. 13k and a August the statute was unconstitutional on its face. On complaint 1980,the District Court dismissed the for failure to Appellees ap- exhaust administrative remedies.3 took an peal, arguing improper that the District Court’s action was Appeals grant and that the Court of should the relief re- quested complaint. *4 in the Appeals
The Court of determined that the District Court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was erroneous and went on to strike down 13k on its face as an rights unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment in a 2 Zywicki’s The case Ebner, United States counsel referred to is No. (D. 1980). Ct., Super. M-12487-79 C. Jan. The currently ease is appeal to the District Appeals; of Columbia post that court has poned pending decision present appeal. outcome of the Burger, (1980). Grace Supp. 524 F.
public place.4
Burger,
Grace v.
App.
D. C. 375,
(1981).
II prohibits Section 13k two distinct activities: it is unlawful either parade, “to stand, or processions move in or assem- blages in the Court Building grounds,” or “to dis- play any flag, therein banner, designed device adapted public into any party, notice organization, or move- ment.” appellee Each appeared individually public on the engage sidewalks to expressive activity, goes and it with- saying out that the threat of arrest to appellee which each subjected was violating prohibition against the display of a “banner or device.” Accordingly, our review is limited portion latter of the statute.5 Likewise, the controversy presented by appellees right concerned their public use the sidewalks surrounding the Court building for the communicative they sought activities carry out, and we shall only address proscriptions whether the §of 13k are applied constitutional as sidewalks. Our normal course is first to “ascertain whether a construc- tion of fairly possible statute is [constitu- which 4The justified court its action in regard by relying primarily on the fact that presented ease pure question of law that had been fully briefed and argued by parties both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals. Because the appellants do not take issue pro- with the priety of the Court of Appeals’ action in addressing the merits rather than remanding to the Court, District we will assume that such action was proper without deciding that question. Cf. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. (1976). 5Although the Court of Appeals opinion purports to hold 13k uncon stitutional on its face without any indication that the holding is limited to portion of the statute that deals with the display of a “flag, banner, or device,” the decision must be read as limited to prohibition. *5 176 Benson, 285 v. Crowell avoided.” be question
tional] 458 U. Ferber, York New (1932). See U. S. con- statutory a make did (1982). Appellees n. ar- oral at courts, but the lower before argument struction the reached 13k§ raised whether question the gument, should we and engaged, appellees in which conduct of types the statute that States United the with agree We it. answer it that and or Grace of Zywicki conduct the particular covers in- question constitutional the reach to proper therefore is case. in this volved or banner, “flag, aof display the is on ban statutory The any notice into public bring adapted or designed device It is § 13k. C. movement.” or organization, party, text the containing sign picket Grace’s that undisputed ban- “flag, aof description the within falls Amendment First un- obvious, equally it is is less Although or device.” ner, proscription the within fall leaflets Zywicki’s that contested well. not contested contention, Government’s the accept alsoWe a com- carrying or leaflet sign almost appellees, by leaf- Zywicki’s sign picket Grace’s including munication, notice into public adapted or “designed be lets, would construction Such movement.” or organization party, [a] hence of the statute reach the certainty to some brings validity. to its challenges other might what avoids hHHH I—I make shall “Congress provides Amendment First The There . . .”6 . speech freedom abridging . . law. no picketing peaceful matter general as a doubt no pro- involving “speech” activities expressive are leafletting Brown, Carey E.g., Amendment. First tected in full: provides Amendment First or religion, establishment an respecting lawno make shall “Congress speech, freedom thereof; abridging exercise free prohibiting assemble, peaceably people right of press; grievances.” redress for a Government petition
177 U. S. 455, 460 Gregory Chicago, (1980); v. 394 U. S. 111, 112 (1969); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. (1939). 147
It is also true that “public places” historically associated
with the free exercise of expressive
activities,
such as
streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more,
to be “public
Perry
forums.” See
Education Assn.
Perry
v.
Local Educators’ Assn.,
Publicly owned operated property does not become a “public forum” simply because members of the public are per- mitted to come and go at will. See Spock, Greer 424 U. S. (1976). Although whether the property has been “generally opened to the public” ais factor to consider in determining whether the government has opened its prop- erty use of the people for communicative purposes, it is not determinative of the question. We have regularly re- jected the assertion that people who wish “to propagandize protests or views have a constitutional right to do so when- Adderley v. they please.” wherever however ever and (1966). g., Loui- e. Cox v. See, 47-48 Florida, I); (Cox supra, (1965) II, Cox 536, 554-555 siana, 379 U. circumstances in some doubt little There is at 563-564. property entry on to government ban except have persons who those all “public forum” anot government, “no premises. The legitimate business pre- power to property, has private owner than a less *7 it is to which the use for its control property under the serve supra, 47. at Adderley Florida, lawfully dedicated.” supra, at 563-564. II, Cox See
IV building grounds and Supreme Court argued the that It is property. nonpublic description forum neatly the within fit tra- not been it has publicly owned, Although property is the expressive public for the open ditionally use for the held property supra, the teaches, Spock, Greer As activities. merely property be- “public forum” into transformed is not freely leave the and permitted enter public is the cause public is admitted the practically and all times grounds at view this specified Under during building hours.7 the restrictions the only that necessary determine be would imposed light to which use of the § by are reasonable 13k is there no that grounds building are dedicated the make need not We of content. the basis on discrimination judgment § covers 13k however, because time, at grounds building in- public as well sidewalks in the permitted public is during which hours limitation on The under promulgated only regulation building is the Supreme Court provides: regulation The 131. C. D. C. E., Washington, Street, N. First Building at 1 Supreme “The 4:30 a. Friday, from 9 m. through Monday public open to all other at building is closed holidays. The m., except on Federal p. may admitted at be legitimate business having although persons times, officials.” responsible so authorized times when other side the sidewalks. As will become evident, we hold that § may 13k applied be public to the sidewalks. prohibitions imposed by technically 13k cover the en- grounds tire Court as defined in 40 U. C.S. §13p.8 That section grounds describes the Court as extend- ing to the curb of each the four enclosing streets the block which the is located. Included within this small geographical area, only therefore, are not building, plaza surrounding promenade, steps, lawn area, and but also the sidewalks. The comprising sidewalks the outer boundaries of the Court indistinguishable are from any other Washington, sidewalks D. C., and we can dis- cern why they no reason should be differently.9 treated among Sidewalks, of course, are public those prop- areas of erty traditionally open have public been held expressive clearly activities and are within those areas of public property generally considered, without inquiry, further to be property. forum In this re- spect, present case differs Spock, from supra. Greer v. In Greer, the streets and sidewalks at issue were located *8 within military an enclosed reservation, Dix, Fort N. J., and separated were thus from the streets and sidewalks of municipality. That not true of the surrounding sidewalks 13p Section provides: purposes “For the of 13f 13p sections to of this Supreme title the Court grounds shall be held to extend the line of the face of the east curb of First Street Northeast, between Maryland Avenue Northeast and East Capitol Street; the line of the face of the south curb of Maryland Avenue Northeast, between First Street Northeast and Second Street Northeast; to the line of the face of the west curb of Second Northeast, Street between Maryland Avenue Northeast and Capitol East Street; and to the line of the of face the north curb of East Capitol Street between First Street North- east and Second Street Northeast.” 9 Because the prohibitions §of 13k are expressly applicable made to the grounds entire § under 13p, the statute cannot be construed to the exclude sidewalks. Thus we must consider Congress’ § extension of 13k’s prohi bitions the sidewalks to be a reasoned choice. indica- no separation, fence, no no There is the Court. curb to the stepping street persons from the whatever tion perimeter the Court of serve as that and sidewalks type special of enclave. they entered some grounds have Greenburgh Assns., Civic Postal Service States In United may “Congress . . . (1981), we stated 453 U. ‘public status destroy forum’ ipse dixit by its own not public historically forums been parks have which streets scope public within of the inclusion The . . .” . sidewalks destruction results prohibition, however, of 13k’s impermissi- presumptively at least that is public status forum po- special occupies a property public forum Traditional ble. protection not and will Amendment of First in terms sition that it the reason recognized for historically character lose its to a use property has been dedicated government abuts may expression. public Nor for forum a than as other property the character government transform statutory definition including expedient within prop- parcel of nonpublic forum might considered be what perimeter of the forming the public erty. sidewalks The public forums are view, grounds, in our Supreme Court purposes. Amendment for First such treated be should V qualifies reason- as a that 13k submits Government
The im- place, which restriction manner time, able public forum activities restrict communicative posed to the in- argument is that as sidewalks. property such Supreme be confined quiry should vicinity Court” on “the focus should but Appel- Washington, Brief D. C.” places of “the *9 con- light, in the Government Viewed n. 5. 16, lants within areas alternative sufficient are tends that there or the the Court around as the streets such forum, relevant consid- permit be 13k streets to those sidewalks across having only minimal a “place” restriction ered reasonable impact expressive on activity. We are convinced, however, that the section, totally which specified bans the communi- activity cative public on sidewalks around the Court grounds,10 justified cannot be place aas reasonable restriction primarily because it has an insufficient nexus with of the public interests thought be §13k. undergird Our for this conclusion will apparent become reasons below, where we decide that prohibitions 13k, insofar as its reach public to the sidewalks, is unconstitutional because it does sufficiently serve those urged interests that are as justification. its part Section 13k was of an 11-section statute, enacted “[r]elating policing building grounds Supreme Court of the United States.” 63 Stat. 616, 40 §§ U. 13f-13p. C.S. passage occasion for its was the practice termination of the District of Columbia authori appointing ties Supreme guards special Court policemen for the District. This action Supreme left the police Court authority force without to make arrests and enforce the law grounds and on the of the Court. The Act, which was forthcoming, soon legislation on modeled relating Capitol grounds, 60 Stat. 718, 40 U. S. C. §§193a-193m. It appointment authorizes the by the Mar special shal of duty officers “for polic connection with the ing Building adjacent streets.” Sections 2-6 prohibit of the Act certain kinds 13k 10 Section prohibit does not all expressive conduct: it not, does example, purport prohibit any oral expression, any subject. It is un necessary, however, to determine what conduct other than the picketing and leafletting at issue here may fairly within the terms of the statute because the statute at prohibits least the conduct at issue here. We do note that the current Marshal of the Court interpreted has and applied the statute to prohibit picketing and leafletting, but expressive not other con duct. See Grace v. Burger, App. D. C. 7,n. 665 F. 2d (1981). 1193, 1196, n. 7 Interpreted applied as an absolute ban on types these two expressive conduct, it is clear that the prohibition is fa cially content-neutral. *10 as 40 grounds. 6, codified building Section in the conduct the authorize sections § Other here. is issue 13k, at U. S. C. penalties violations provide for regulations, to Marshal issue special the Court’s regulations, and authorize orAct the of prohibitions the Act’s of for violation police make arrests to occurring build- the within any States the United of of law 11 of Section adjacent streets. grounds ing on the and and Court’s of the §13p, limits the defines 13 U. S. C. Act, the building. surrounding the including the grounds sidewalks as history, fair legislative it is provisions and on its Based protec- provide for the purpose Act of the say the that prop- persons and the building and of the tion proper order the maintenance erty as well therein, provi- § of the one 13k, was C. 6, U. decorum. Section no purposes. least, At designed for these apparently sions special its enactment. for stated reason was persons necessity protect denigrate do not We proper within and decorum order property maintain or to question a total whether do grounds, we but Supreme Court public side- on flag, or device carrying banner, ban on sug- nois purposes. There substantially these serves walks way any ob- appellees’ activities example, gestion, that for building, threatened to the or access the sidewalks structed way any interfered property, any person or in injury parts building or other orderly administration with the perimeter building’s said, have grounds. weAs public sidewalks indistinguishable from other are sidewalks is at normally open that conduct city are in the con- § on that A total ban forbids. 13k and that here issue peace and necessary maintenance for the no more duct surrounding public sidewalks tranquility Accordingly, city. 13k other sidewalks than on justified basis. on this cannot justification 13k that another offers States United rep- courts the federal is said It attention. our deserves the Government independent branch an resent decisionmaking processes their are different from those of the other branches. Court decisions are made on the record *11 before in them and applicable accordance with the law. The parties views of the and of presented by others are to be argument. briefs and oral subject lobby- Courts are not to ing, judges do not entertain in visitors their chambers for the purpose urging way cases be resolved one or another, they do respond not and parades, should not picketing, to pressure groups. or urges, the Neither, Government should appear public Supreme to the subject that the Court is to outside picketing influence or that singly marching, or inor groups, acceptable is proper an way or appealing in- fluencing Supreme the Court. we Hence, are asked to hold Congress quite justified preventing in the conduct dispute in here from occurring on edge the sidewalks at the grounds. the Court
As was the case-with the maintenance of law and order on grounds, the Court importance we do not discount the of this proffered purpose § again, for 13k. But, we are unconvinced prohibitions §13k that the that are at issue here suffi- ciently purpose validity serve that to sustain its insofar the public perimeter grounds sidewalks the are con- cerned. Those by public sidewalks are used the like other public nothing sidewalks. There is public indicate to part that these sidewalks are any way are public different from other sidewalks in the
city. seriously We public doubt would draw a dif- picketer ferent carrying inference from a sign lone on sidewalks around the than it would from a similar picket on the sidewalks across street. perceive justification thus
We prohi- insufficient for 13k’s carrying signs, bition of banners, or devices on surrounding building. sidewalks We hold that under the First Amendment the applied section is unconstitutional as those say sidewalks. Of course, is this not that those side- like subject walks, other sidewalks, are not to reasonable by by either statute place, restrictions, and manner time, § 13l. pursuant S. C. to 40 U. regulations issued accordingly extent affirmed judgment below opinion vacated. is otherwise indicated ordered.
So dissenting part concurring Marshall, Justice part. face. on its unconstitutional C. 13k 40 U. S.
I hold would distinguishes way from the sidewalks in no The statute pur excising from its premises, the sidewalks rest of the conformity First Amend with the it into view does their First Amend not lose do to this Court ment. Visitors *12 than edge more rights of the sidewalks the at ment rights to constitutional shed their or teachers “students gate.” expression speech at the schoolhouse freedom of Community Dis Independent School v. Des Moines Tinker (1969). continuing exist the 506 Since 503, 393 U. S. trict, chilling inevitably on effect have a will statute ence of the deciding its con expression, no virtue in there is freedom of piecemeal stitutionality a basis. on every right [he] place to has “in a citizen is where When a (1966) (opinion 142 131, 383 S. Louisiana, v. U. Brown be,” J.), Douglas, he by joined J., and Warren, C. J., Fortas, simply express opportunity his views to the be denied cannot designate area to the has not chosen Government because the right to public conduct While discussion. for as a forum parks, and side streets, expressive in areas as such activities purposes of as by use for their traditional is reinforced walks (1939) (opinion Hague sembly, 496, 515 307 U. S. CIO, v. ultimately J.), right rests joined Black, J., Roberts, rightfully which on a street principle “one who is open him with there carries has left the state express in right an his views the constitutional elsewhere orderly 416 413, 318 U. S. Texas, v. Jamison fashion.” added). lawfully present Every in (1943) a (emphasis citizen
185 public place right engage peaceable has a in orderly expression incompatible that is not with primary activity place question, in place whether that is a a lib school,1 rary,2 private grounds a lunch counter,3the of a statehouse,4 Capitol,5 of the United States a bus terminal,6 an airport,7 or a welfare Grayned As we center.8 stated in (1972), City Rockford, 408 “[t]he U. S. 104, 116 crucial question is expression whether the basically manner of in compatible activity with the normal particular place of a at particular “[O]ne time.” is not to have the exercise of liberty expression his appropriate places abridged on plea place.” exercised some other (1939). Schneider State, 308 S. 147, U.
I why see premises no reason of this Court should be exempt principle. from this basic It would be ironic indeed if exception an to the recognized Constitution were to be for pro- very institution that has the responsibility chief tecting rights. apply constitutional I premises would principle this Court the same applied that this Court has public places. other light,
Viewed
plainly
U. S. C. 13kis
unconstitu-
tional on its face. The
regulation
statute is not a reasonable
1Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
District,
School
(1969).
512-513
v. Louisiana,
2 Brown
(1966); id.,
U.
at
and n. 5
*13
(Brennan,
J., concurring
judgment).
in
Louisiana,
3 Garner
v.
157,
(1961)
368
S.U.
201-202
(Harlan, J., concur
ring
judgment).
in
4 Edwards v.
Carolina,
South
(1963).
372 U.
229
S.
5Jeannette
Brigade
Rankin
Capitol Police, 342
v.
Supp.
F.
575
Chief of
(DC), summarily aff’d,
(1972).
of 312 U. S. New Hampshire, (1949); 87-89 Cox U. S. en- times, covers at for all (1941), applies 575-576 Court, proscribes and, interpreted premises, tire the wear- and, presumably, out of leaflet a handing even as well.9 button campaign of a ing is incom- conduct forbid merely statute does the Nor in this out carried activity being the primary with patible 116; at Rockford, supra, v. City Grayned Cf. Court. of con- (1976) (Powell, 843 424 U. S. J., v. Spock, Greer (1976 ed., Supp. § 1507 C. to 18 U. S. contrast In curring). Louisiana, in V) Cox upheld and the statute activi- expressive § 13k is limited S. C. (1965),10 U. obstruct, impede or with, to interfere intended that are ties stressed In the Court Cox justice. the administration judicial to any “unrelated of expression a prohibition different considerations.” “entirely raise would proceedings” from cry a far here is at issue 567. statute S., at U. it a crime also make Code provisions of the States Separate United §§C. 13h premises. 40 give speech a on the U. or contributions solicit 13j. V) pertinent (1976 ed., Supp. provides § 1507 18 U. S. C. 10 Title part: impeding with, or interfering obstructing, “Whoever, intent of with influencing any judge, intent of with the justice, administration of or pa- duty, pickets or discharge of his witness, officer, in the juror, court or States, ... or the United building housing a court a or near rades any resorts to or or device any sound-truck similar uses with such intent building . . . be fined not shall such in or near demonstration other year, or both.” than one not more $5,000 imprisoned or than more pertinent face in Cox provided upheld on its statute The Louisiana part: impeding with, or interfering obstructing, “Whoever, the intent of with any judge, influencing intent of justice, with the or the administration pa- duty pickets or officer, discharge of his witness, in the juror, court Louisiana . . . housing court the State in or near a rades imprisoned not more more than thousand dollars fined not five shall be 1962). (Supp. La. Rev. 14:401 year, both.” Stat. one than
187 (1976 V) both 18 U. S. C. 1507 ed., the statute Supp. Cox, for it upheld a blanket imposes prohibition “any flag, banner, of or “display” device designed adapted into notice any party, or move- organization, added.) ment.” (Emphasis application of the statute does not depend whether the or device in upon flag, banner, concerns a case any way before this Court. So a sweeping is prohibition scarcely necessary of protect operations Court, my view cannot constitutionally applied be either to the Court or to the areas inside the Court that are open public.
I would therefore hold the prohibition unconstitutional on its face.11 have We that a statute repeatedly recognized which within its ambit a broad sweeps range expression the First Amendment should be struck down on protected by its face.12 “The existence of such a . . statute . results a continuous and restraint on all pervasive freedom discus- agree
11 I
with the
prohibiting
Court that the clause of 40 U. C. 13k
S.
processions
assemblages
us,
appellees
is not before
since neither of the
engaged in procession
assemblage.
a
12 g.,
Robel,
E.
(1967);Keyishian
United States v.
An overbroad statute should likewise be struck down on its face here, challenged by litigants it is whose own activities are constitution- allyprotected. *15 pur might reasonably regarded as its within
sion (1940) Thornhill v. 310 U. 97-98 Alabama, view.” S. eomitted). (footnot in his As Justice Brennan stated opinion 371 U. Button, for the Court NAACP S. (1963), freedoms “are delicate and vul First Amendment “[t]he exer threat of sanctions deter their nerable,” potently application of cise almost as as the actual sanctions.” subject I to the continu would not leave visitors this Court ing imprisonment13 they if threat of dare to exercise their rights inside First Amendment once the sidewalks. Stevens, dissenting Justice concurring part part. Zywicki hand-
On three occasions distributed leaflets and activity “display” I bills. would not construe that any as the typical “flag, passerby A or device.” banner, would Zywicki’smessage “display” have from the of his lit- learned Only Zywicki’s possession erature. after the material left message intelligible. would his become have sign On one occasion carried a on which the text of Grace agree I the First Amendment was written. that this was “display” agree of a I “device,” but do not that her device “designed adapted any party, or into notice organization, typical passerby A not, or movement.” could merely by observing sign, confidently link her her with specificparty, organization, or “movement” as that term was understood when this statute was drafted.* language
I see no reason to stretch the of the statute to encompass Zywicki the activities of either As a Grace. statutory interpretation, matter of we should not infer that 13 person subject imprisonment A who violates the statute for 60 fine, days or a 40 U. C. 13m. both. $100 part body * “A course or series of actions and endeavours on the of a persons, moving tending continuously special more or less towards some (1933) 6). English Dictionary (“movement,” end.” 6 Oxford definition (2d 1934) (“move Dictionary also International ed. See Webster’s 4). ment,” definition
Congress abridge expression intended to free in circum- plainly language stances not covered of the statute. judicial As a matter of restraint, we should avoid the unnec- essary adjudication questions. of constitutional appellees
Because neither has I statute, violated the judgment Appeals would affirm the of the Court of to the ex- requires appellants tent that it be restrained from caus- ing appellees’ engaging arrest for in the activities disclosed by this record.