RAV v. St. Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Case Briefing by Patrick Moser and Ruth Sterner
1) Basic Facts of the Case a) In the early morning hours of June 21, 1990, the petitioner and several other teenagers assembled a crudely made cross.
b) The cross was erected and burned in the front yard of an African American family.
c) The city of St. Paul charged RAV under two provisions, one being St. Paul’s
Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. IMPORTANT NOTE: The city could have sited
RAV on numerous other charges. d) Petitioner moved to dismiss the case.
e) St. Paul’s Bias- Motivated Ordinance stated “Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor” (Heumann and Church, 1997, p. 109).
2) Issues Raised in the Case a) Was St. Paul’s ordinance legally valid under the First Amendment?
i) Was it overbroad?
ii) Was it impermissibly content based?
3) Procedural History and Background a) Trial court granted the petitioner’s motion and case was appealed to Minnesota
Supreme Court.
b) Minnesota Supreme Court overturned based on two factors: i) That action that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others” limited the ordinance’s control to “fighting words” as based on federal case law, specifically Chaplinsky and… ii) Ordinance was narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats c) Case was appealed to U.S. Supreme Court and a decision was made in 1992.
4) What Did the Court Decide and What Was Their Rationale?
a) Majority opinion (5 justices-Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, and
Thomas) i) Opinion was based on ordinance being too narrow.
ii) Judges did not believe that fighting words should be further clarified “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender” or on the basis of other disfavored topics.

iii) St. Paul’s ordinance restricts the definition of “fighting words” and therefore creates viewpoint/content discrimination.
(1) EXAMPLE: “under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring ‘all anti-Semites are mother-f*&#ers’ but not that all ‘Jews are mother-f*&#ers’” (www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675/)
Government has no authority to narrow the definition of hate speech.
b) Concurring opinion #1 [written by White, joined by Blackmun, O'Connor, and
Stevens (in part)] i) Opinion was based on ordinance being overbroad. Actions that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment” do not inheritably constitute “fighting words” and therefore the ordinance was not legally supported ii) Opinion was based on Texas v. Johnson and Cohen v. California which concluded that expressive activity that causes hurt feelings, offense, or resentment does not render the expression unprotected.
c) Concurring opinion # 2 (written by Stevens, joined by White and Blackmun) i) Disagreement with Majority opinion because they believe that conduct that creates special risks or causes special harms can be prohibited by special rules including content-based limitations.
ii) ANALOGY: Lighting a fire near gasoline station is especially dangerous and should be punished more severely than burning trash in a vacant lot. As such threatening someone on the basis of race or religion causes more social disruption and trauma than threatening someone on the basis of their support for a particular team. d) Concurring opinion #3 (written by Blackmun) i) Disagree because majority opinion weakens First Amendment protectionsordinance could be written that simply doesn’t clarify “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender” ii) Decision will be insignificant and court simply stuck down ordinance whose premise it opposed, namely that racial threats are of greater harm than other fighting words.
5) Notes, Comments, Questions i) What other ordinances could St. Paul have used to charge the petitioner?
Why did they choose to cite him based on bias-motivated crime ordinance?
ii) What role did the fact that he was a juvenile play in this case?
iii) What role did this case play in revising administrative rules considering hate speech on college campuses?
iv) Why did it go straight from trail court to Minnesota Supreme Court?
v) This case is a perfect example of why universities have legal counsel!