Walker v. City of Birmingham (Civil disobedience, 1967)
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
The Facts
Walker and other civil rights protesters were arrested for violating a temporary restraining order issued by an Alabama court that prohibited demonstrations in Birmingham. The protesters challenged the order as unconstitutional but were convicted of contempt for violating it anyway. The question arose whether they could be punished for violating an unconstitutional court order.
The Issue
• Whether a person may be held in civil contempt for violating a court order that is later found to be unconstitutional • Whether an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting demonstrations constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights • Whether the proper remedy for an unconstitutional order is collateral attack rather than direct violation and contempt prosecution
The Rules
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.
Prior restraints on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to the most stringent scrutiny.
A person must obey a court order, even if arguably unconstitutional, and may not violate it to challenge its constitutionality; the proper remedy is to seek appellate review or collateral relief, not contempt prosecution.
The Application
The Court applied the collateral bar rule to hold that the protesters' First Amendment objections could not excuse their violation of the court's order, despite the injunction's later unconstitutionality. Because the protesters chose to violate the injunction rather than seek its dissolution through proper judicial channels, they were properly convicted of contempt. The Court held that a litigant must obey a court order until it is properly overturned, regardless of the litigant's own assessment of the order's constitutionality. This application prioritized the finality and enforceability of court orders over individual defiance based on constitutional grounds.
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the contempt convictions could stand even though the underlying injunction was ultimately found to be unconstitutional.** The Court ruled that a person must obey a court order, even an unconstitutional one, until it is properly overturned; violation and subsequent contempt conviction is the appropriate remedy to challenge such orders. Justice Stewart's dissent argued the injunction was a clear First Amendment violation and contempt was an inappropriate sanction.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support