Cori Hall and Kathryn Magura
Case Briefing
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul: 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
1.
WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE?

R.A.V. was a juvenile who assembled a crudely-made cross with chair legs in the yard of
a black family living across the street from him in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Along with some fellow teenagers, R.A.V. allegedly burned the cross inside the fenced
yard of the black family.

The city of St. Paul had a number of options when deciding what crimes to charge R.A.V.
with, but opted to charge R.A.V. with a misdemeanor under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated
Crime Ordinance that states, “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.”

R.A.V. petitioned to have the misdemeanor count dismissed on the grounds that the
ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content-based and therefore
invalid under the 1st Amendment, which clearly states, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
2.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE?

The constitutionality of a city ordinance: Is the ordinance “overbroad” because it
prohibits too much speech? If not, is it “underbroad” because it does not prohibit enough
speech?

Even in a hate speech case, where most parties would agree the action is inappropriate,
the 1st Amendment protects the people from the government being able to drive certain
viewpoints from the marketplace.

3.
How does the 1st Amendment affect hate speech crimes?
WHAT DID THE COURT DECIDE (HOLD)?

The Minnesota state trial court granted this motion to drop the misdemeanor charge for
breaking the St. Paul Ordinance, but the Minnesota Supreme court reversed this decision,
after the city of St. Paul appealed.
Cori Hall and Kathryn Magura

Case Briefing
The U. S. Supreme court granted the case a writ of certiorari and granted R.A.V.’s
appeal. The Supreme Court’s final decision invalidated St. Paul’s ordinance because its
restriction on speech content too narrowly confined the 1st Amendment. R.A.V. v. City
of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992).
4.
WHAT RATIONALE DID THE COURT PROVIDE FOR ITS DECISION?

Opinions within the Supreme Court varied as to the justification of the decision:
o
Justice Scalia argues that based on the content of the actions, the ordinance too
narrowly defines the constitutional rights spelled out in the 1st Amendment. The
ordinance is picking and choosing which words and actions are valid within its
definition, whereas the 1st Amendment allows for freedom of all expression.
o
Justice White, while agreeing with the overall Supreme Court decision, believed
that the ordinance is invalid on the grounds of being overbroad and open to too
much interpretation. The “fighting words” that were described in the ordinance
were unclear as to what the words meant and their effects on the parties involved.
o
While Justice Stevens agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision, he believes that
the ordinance is overbroad, but even-handed in that it allows for advocates of
tolerance as well as intolerance to say whatever they want, so long as they are not
said on the basis of the target’s “race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Had the
ordinance not been overbroad, Justice Stevens would have voted in St. Paul’s
favor.
OTHER NOTES, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS . . .

Sources of law: City Ordinance and Constitutional Amendment

Courts Involved: Minnesota state trial court; state court of appeals; state Supreme Court;
and the U. S. Supreme Court.
Reference:
Heumann, M. and Church, T.W.(Eds.)(1997). Hate Speech on campus. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, pp 109-122.