Coppock v. Patterson

272 F. Supp. 16, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7062
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedAugust 16, 1967
DocketCiv. A. No. 3794
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 F. Supp. 16 (Coppock v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coppock v. Patterson, 272 F. Supp. 16, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7062 (S.D. Miss. 1967).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a class action for injunction and declaratory relief, brought by the plaintiffs against State, County, and City officials. Plaintiffs seek to invalidate certain portions of Senate Bills 1512, 1513, and 1514 of the first Extraordinary Session of the Mississippi Legislature of 1965 as being in contravention of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. More specifically, it is contended that the allegedly offending portions of these Statutes are vague and overbroad, impose a prior restraint on expression, and deny plaintiffs freedom of speech and freedom of petition for redress of grievances.

The Statutes will be copied as an Appendix to this opinion. Senate Bill 1512 deals with the present State Capitol Building, generally known as the New Capitol. Senate Bill 1513 deals in like manner with the Executive Mansion. Senate Bill 1514 deals with the Old State Capitol, now a historical museum, and the State Office Building. The Statutes describe the boundaries of the various buildings. They restrict public travel in and occupancy of the grounds to the roads or streets, walks and places prepared for that purpose by paving or otherwise. Nothing may be offered for sale or exposed for sale on the grounds, nor shall any sign, placard, or other form of advertisement be displayed. It is likewise forbidden to solicit alms, subscriptions, or contributions therein. It is further forbidden to discharge any firearm, firework, or explosive, or to set fire to any combustible, or to make any harangue or oration or utter loud, threatening or abusive language on the grounds. Parading, standing, or moving in procession or assemblage or the display therein of any [18]*18flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to • bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement, is likewise prohibited.

It is common knowledge, and the Court necessarily knows of its own knowledge, that the New Capitol, constructed in 1903, occupies an entire city block. This block is surrounded on all four sides by public streets, but within the block are to be found only drives and walks considered necessary for the use of the general public in gaining access to the Capitol in the transaction of appropriate state business. The Capitol contains the offices of the governor, the lieutenant governor, the justices of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court chamber, legislative chambers, and other public offices of like kind and character.

It is common knowledge, and the Court necessarily knows of its own knowledge, that the Executive Mansion, constructed in 1840, occupies an entire city block, now in the heart of the Jackson business district. It is surrounded on all four sides by public streets and the grounds contain only drives and walks intended for ingress and egress to and from the Mansion.

Similar situations exist as to the Old Capitol, constructed in 1839, and the State Office Building, constructed in the late nineteen forties, except that these buildings are approached by walks to the front and by drives from the rear.

It is beyond dispute that no public assembly or speaking or other gathering has ever been permitted on the Capitol grounds other than the quadrennial inauguration of a governor, in keeping with the inauguration of our Presidents at the East front of the United States Capitol. It has never heretofore been suggested that the general public should be permitted at their option to hold public gatherings at the governor’s home or at the other buildings here involved.

Moreover, we are aware that these statutes, except for the sections hereinafter held unconstitutional, apply not only to these plaintiffs but equally to the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, or any similar organization.

Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment are not to be denied any citizen. As long as the Constitution endures they will not successfully be denied. Moreover, these freedoms are entitled to that breathing space necessary to their survival. Peaceful assembly and peaceful demonstration must be recognized as important aspects of these inviolable rights. They cannot be smothered by overbroad or vague enactments. They are not to be left to the unfettered discretion of those in official power.

Certainly, the people have a right, in an orderly fashion, in keeping with rules of civilized behaviour, to visit their public buildings, to call at the governor’s office, and to observe the proceedings of their legislatures and courts. These statutes do not interfere with such activity.

This does not mean that people, at their sole option, have unrestricted license to assemble or speak when they please or where they please or in what manner they please in utter disregard of other functions equally guaranteed by the Constitution. It could not, we think, be very successfully contended that one has a right to make a speech or conduct a demonstration in space which has been set aside to the use of the Congress or a State Legislature or a Court or any similar agency of the government, state or national. We are not here dealing with ordinary streets or sidewalks or public parks. Even as to these latter places reasonable regulation, necessary to the welfare of the general public, prevail over the wishes of those who consider only their own rights. This case involves buildings, and the grounds upon which they stand, which have been established and maintained for special purposes which are themselves protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States in Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed.2d 149, expressly held that a state has the power [19]*19to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated and further held that the United States Constitution does not forbid a state to control the use of its own property for its own non-discriminatory purposes.

In the interest of peaceable, orderly, respectable, and effective conduct of the necessary public business, the state is not acting unreasonably or arbitrarily in directing that all its citizens, of whatever race, color, or creed, shall not be allowed to interfere with the tranquillity of its public buildings and' the grounds upon which they are situate.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are placed in no jeopardy nor do they suffer any unreasonable restriction when it is enacted that the Governor may occupy the home which the people have provided for him without having to cope with assemblies and demonstrations on the Mansion grounds. Neither can it very successfully be argued, we think, that Congresses, Legislatures, and Supreme Courts must perform their solemn, indispensable functions while surrounded by parades, assemblies, demonstrations, or other shows of force on the grounds of the very buildings in which they are required to perform their duties. Gubernatorial action, legislative enactment, and judicial decision are not to turn on who at the moment commands the largest organized crowd or the meanest public harangue or the loudest speaking voice. We think those who originated, sponsored, and adopted the First Amendment would be horrified by such a distortion of what they were attempting to, and did, accomplish.

Plaintiffs stipulate that they are not attacking the Constitutionality of the statutes in their entirety, nor each section in its entirety. The attack is concentrated on the following provisions:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. David Bronstein
849 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 F. Supp. 16, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppock-v-patterson-mssd-1967.