City of Chicago v. Morales
| City of Chicago v. Morales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued December 9, 1998 Decided June 10, 1999 |
||||||
| Full case name | City of Chicago, Petitioner v. Jesus Morales et al. | |||||
| Docket nos. | 97–1121 | |||||
| Citations | 527 U.S. 41 (more) 527 U.S. 41 |
|||||
| Prior history | 177 Ill. 2d 440, 687 N. E. 2d 53, affirmed. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance violates due process in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Stevens, joined by O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (with respect to Parts I, II, and V); Souter, Ginsburg (with respect to Parts III, IV, and VI) | |||||
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Breyer | |||||
| Concurrence | Kennedy | |||||
| Concurrence | Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Scalia | |||||
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Amend. XIV, U.S. Const. | ||||||
City of Chicago v. Morales 527 U.S. 41 (1999) was an important United States Supreme Court case that held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.
Contents |
[edit] Background and facts
Under the common law, loitering was a crime.
The facts of the case were:
Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibit[ed] "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. The police department’s General Order 92—4 ... [had a provision] providing for designated, but publicly undisclosed, enforcement areas. Two trial judges upheld the ordinance’s constitutionality, but eleven others ruled it invalid. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the latter cases and reversed the convictions in the former. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance violates due process in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.—Summary of the case, City of Chicago v. Morales, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 97—1121. [1]
More specifically, "In 1993, Jesus Morales was arrested and found guilty under the ordinance for loitering in a Chicago neighborhood after he ignored police orders to disperse. Ultimately, after Morales challenged his arrest, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the ordinance violated due process of law in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties."[2][3] The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Illinois' judgment.[4]
[edit] Issue and holding
The only issue on certiorari was whether the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, either on its face or as applied, in violation of "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."[2]
The United States Supreme Court held in this case that a law can not be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.[2][3]
[edit] Rationale
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the plurality, said that the:
ordinance's definition of loitering as "to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose" does not give people adequate notice of what is prohibited and what is permitted, even if a person does not violate the law until he refuses to disperse. "'[A] law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits,'" noted Justice Stevens, "[i]f the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty."
Six justices ultimately sided with Morales, and three with the City of Chicago.[2] However, only three justices agreed on all of the rationales and the complete holding, namedly Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg.[5] O'Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer had concurring opinions.[5] One particular "sticking point" was whether "It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement ... and infringes on constitutionally protected rights...."[5][6] Only Stevens, joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, could agree on that.[5][6]
[edit] Impact
The ACLU claimed a win in this case.[citation needed] There is a question as to whether the First Amendment "won" in the case.[7]
[edit] See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 527
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
[edit] References
- ^ Cornell Law School website. Retrieved October 7, 2008.
- ^ a b c d e Chicago v. Morales, Docket: 97-1121, Citation: 527 U.S. 41 (1999), from Oyez website. Retrieved October 7, 2008.
- ^ a b c See also Audio case files website case brief. Retrieved October 7, 2008.
- ^ Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 at 51 (1999).
- ^ a b c d Summary of Chicago v. Morales at Findlaw.com website. Retrieved October 7, 2008.
- ^ a b Summary, Morales, citing Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 391, 395.
- ^ First Amendment Center website. Retrieved October 7, 2008.
