In a suit to enjoin municipal officers from enforcing ordinances forbidding the distribution of printed matter, and the holding without permits of public meetings, in
streets and other public places, Held: 1. The case is within the jurisdiction of the District Court. Pp. 512-513 , 525 . 2. The ordinances and their enforcement
violate the rights under the Constitution of the individual plaintiffs, citizens of the United States; but a complaining corporation cannot claim such rights. P. 514 . 3.
The ordinances are void. Pp. 516 , 518 . [p*497] 4. Provisions of the decree enjoining forcible removal of plaintiffs or exercise of personal restraint over them
without warrant, or confinement without lawful arrest and production for prompt judicial hearing, saving lawful search and seizure, or interference with their free
access to streets, parks or public places of the city -- are not vague and impracticable. P. 517 . 5. The decree properly enjoined interference with the right of
plaintiffs, their agents etc., to communicate their views as individuals to others on the streets in an orderly and peaceable manner, reserving the right of defendants
to enforce law and order by lawful search and seizure or arrest. P. 517 . 6. Insofar as the decree relates to distribution of literature and holding of meetings, the
decree should enjoin enforcement of the void ordinances, and not undertake to enumerate the conditions under which those activities may he carried on. P. 518 .
----- Opinions PER ROBERTS, J., with whom BLACK, J., concurred. The CHIEF JUSTICE concurred in part (p. 532 ). 1. The District Court lacked
jurisdiction under Jud.Code § 24(1). P. 508 . (a) In suits under § 24(1), a traverse of the allegation as to the amount in controversy, or a motion to dismiss
based upon the absence of such amount calls for substantial proof on the part of the plaintiff of facts justifying the conclusion that the suit involves the necessary
sum. P. 507 . (b) The record in this suit is bare of any showing of the value of the asserted rights to the complainants individually. P. 508 . (c) Complainants may
not aggregate their interests in order to attain the requisite jurisdictional amount. P. 508 . 2. The District Court had jurisdiction under Jud.Code, § 24(14). P. 513
. (a) Freedom to disseminate information concerning the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, to assemble peaceably for discussion of the Act and of
the opportunities and advantages offered by it, is a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States secured against state abridgment by § 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and R.S. § 1979 and Jud.Code § 24(14) afford redress in a federal court for such abridgment. P. 512 . (b) Natural persons alone are
entitled to the privileges and immunities which § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment secures to [p*498] "citizens of the United States." Only the individual
complainants may maintain this suit. P. 514 .
Back to First Amendment Surpreme Court Cases List