After this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment
holding petitioners guilty of breach of the peace, and remanded the
case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina "for further
consideration in light of
Edwards v. South Carolina," that
court found
Edwards and the later case of
Fields v.
South Carolina, 375 U. S. 44, not
controlling, and reaffirmed the convictions.
Held: Edwards and
Fields, which established
that the peaceful expression of unpopular views at a place not
lawfully proscribed by state law is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment from state criminal action, are controlling here.
Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.
PER CURIAM.
When this case was last before us, we granted certiorari,
vacated the judgment holding petitioners guilty of breach of the
peace, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina
"for further consideration in light of
Edwards v. South
Carolina, 372 U. S. 229."
375 U. S. 6. That
has been our practice in analogous situations where, not certain
that the case was free from all obstacles to reversal on an
intervening precedent, we remand the case to the state court for
reconsideration.
Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U. S.
1;
Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U. S.
2;
Newsome v. North Carolina, 375 U. S.
21;
Shockey v. Illinois, 375 U. S.
22;
Ausbie v. California, 375 U. S.
24;
Herrera v. Heinze, 375 U. S.
26;
Barnes v. North Carolina, 375 U. S.
28. The South Carolina Supreme Court examined
Edwards and the later case of
Fields v. South
Page 376 U. S. 777
Carolina, 375 U. S. 44, found
them not controlling, and reaffirmed the convictions. In its
opinion on the remand in the present case, the South Carolina
Supreme Court expressed doubt concerning the meaning and
significance of our remand order, and it went on to explain why, in
its view, the
Edwards and the
Fields cases were
distinguishable. For those reasons, it is appropriate to add these
words of explanation.
The South Carolina Supreme Court correctly concluded that our
earlier remand did not amount to a final determination on the
merits.
* That order did,
however, indicate that we found
Edwards sufficiently
analogous and, perhaps, decisive to compel reexamination of the
case.
We now think
Edwards and
Fields control the
result here. As in those cases, the petitioners here, while at a
place where the State's law did not forbid them to be, were engaged
in the "peaceful expression of unpopular views."
Edwards v.
South Carolina, 372 U.S. at
372 U. S. 237.
They assembled in a peaceful, orderly fashion in front of the City
Hall to protest segregation. They carried signs to that effect, and
they sang patriotic and religious songs. Although white onlookers
assembled, no violence or threat of violence occurred, and traffic
was not disturbed. After 15 minutes of this, they were arrested for
failure to disperse upon orders. Here, as in
Edwards and
Fields, petitioners "were convicted of an offense so
generalized as to be, in the words of the South Carolina Supreme
Court,
not susceptible of exact definition.'" Ibid.
And here, as there,
"they were convicted upon evidence which showed no more than
that the opinions which they were
Page 376 U. S. 778
peaceably expressing were sufficiently opposed to the views of
the majority of the community to attract a crowd and necessitate
police protection."
Ibid.
Edwards established that the "Fourteenth Amendment does
not permit a State to make criminal the peaceful expression of
unpopular views."
Ibid. As in
Edwards, the South
Carolina Supreme Court has here
"defined a criminal offense so as to permit conviction of the
petitioners if their speech 'stirred people to anger, invited
public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A
conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.'
[
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1,
337 U. S.
5.]"
Id. at
372 U. S. 238.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the judgment is
reversed.
* The South Carolina Supreme Court intimated that the rule of
Edwards was designed to guide us in determining our review
of state action. But
Edwards states a rule based upon the
Constitution of the United States which, under the Supremacy
Clause, is binding upon state courts as well as upon federal
courts.