Get help now

Case in Court: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

  • Pages 2
  • Words 473
  • Views 684
  • dovnload



  • Pages 2
  • Words 473
  • Views 684
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    A teenager who placed a burning cross in the fenced back yard of a black family was charged under a City of St. Paul bias-motivated crime ordinance. At trial, the teenager moved for dismissal, alleging the ordinance was violative of the First Amendment. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, the MN Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, citing the “fighting words doctrine” from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), saying that the ordinance was a “narrowly tailored means toward accomplishing the governmental interest in protecting the community.”

    The ordinance was facially invalid under the First Amendment.

    In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia looks to the association of the “fighting words doctrine” used by the MN Supreme Court and agrees that the phrase “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others” is within the scope of the doctrine. However, the remaining words in the ordinance criminalize acts that are based only on “race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Referring to that language, Justice Scalia said the following:

    Displays containing “fighting words” that do not invoke the disfavored subjects would seemingly be usable ad libitum by those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc., tolerance and equality, but not by their opponents. St. Paul’s desire to communicate to minority groups that it does not condone the “group hatred” of bias-motivated speech does not justify selectively silencing speech on the basis of its content.

    Even though the intent of the ordinance was to ensure the “basic human rights” of groups “historically discriminated” against, the ordinance can not stand. Justice’s White, Blackmun, O’Connor, and Stevens concurred with the Opinion of the Court.

    Justice Scalia spent a great deal of time focusing on the importance of the “fighting words doctrine.” In their concurring opinion, Justice’s White, Blackmun, O’Connor, and Stevens looked at the ordinance as invalid because it was, as the petitioner argued, overbroad. In the concurring opinion, the Justice’s said:

    In the First Amendment context, criminal statutes must be scrutinized with particular care; those that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they also have a legitimate application…Although the ordinance reaches conduct that is unprotected, it also makes criminal expressive conduct that causes only hurt feelings, offense, or resentment, and is protected by the First Amendment…The ordinance is therefore fatally overbroad and invalid on its face.

    Whether the ordinance is overbroad or invalid under the scope of the fighting words doctrine, the end result was the correct and best summarized by Justice Scalia:

    Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.


    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Case in Court: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. (2018, Jul 11). Retrieved from

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Feel free to contact us anytime, we are always ready to help you!

    What amendment might Paul argue was just violate Why?
    Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime to place a burning cross or swastika anywhere “in an attempt to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” The Court's decision, citing violation of the First Amendment, overturned a cross-burning ...
    What is the RAV test?
    Viktora, R.A.V., was charged under the St Paul, Minnesota, Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance which prohibits the. display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know" arouses anger, alarm, or. resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." Violation of this.
    What was the significance of the chaplinsky vs New Hampshire case?
    The Supreme Court decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), established the doctrine of fighting words, a type of speech or communication not protected by the First Amendment.
    What was the significance of the RAV vs St Paul case?
    The U.S. Supreme Court held that an ordinance prohibiting “fighting words” that were racially motivated was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The ruling overturned the plaintiff's conviction by the Minnesota Supreme Court for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family.

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy