Caren Cronk Thomas and Windy City Hemp Development Board v. Chicago Park District (534 U.S. 316)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 15, 2002 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 534 U.S. 316 · 122 S. Ct. 775
- Decided
- January 15, 2002
- Term
- October Term 2001
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a municipal park ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events must, consistent with the First Amendment, contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). I Respondent, the Chicago Park District (Park District), is responsible for operating public parks and other public property in Chicago. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 70, § 1505/7.01 (2001). Pursuant to its authority to “establish by ordinance all needful rules and regulations for the government and protection of parks . . . and other property under its jurisdiction,” §1505/7.02, the Park District adopted an ordinance that requires a person to obtain a permit in order to “conduct a public assembly, parade, picnic, or other event involving more than fifty individuals,” or engage in an. activity such as “creating] or emitting] any Amplified Sound.” Chicago Park Dist. Code, ch. VII, §§ C.3.a(l), C.3.a(6). The ordinance provides that “Applications for permits shall be processed in order of receipt,” § C.5.a, and the Park District must decide whether to grant or deny an application within 14 days unless, by written notice to the applicant, it extends the period an additional 14 days, §C.5.c. Applications can be denied on any of 13 specified grounds. § C.S.e. If…
Excerpt of a 17,365-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.