October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1249
Does a park permit system violate free speech rights?
the sides that brought the case claim the Chicago Park District's permit rules suppress speech. The District argues the rules satisfy First Amendment standards.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Chief Justice Rehnquist distinguished this case from prior censorship precedents.
Mr. Strauss clarified the park district uses a first-come, first-served rule.
Chief Justice Rehnquist identified the issue as prior restraint.
Mr. Feldman argued the ordinance satisfies First Amendment standards.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 11-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a city park permit system violates the First Amendment. the sides that brought the case seek a ruling that the rules are unconstitutional. The District seeks to keep the rules in place.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 11-13
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the permit rules.
The District wants the Court to uphold the permit rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the permit system acts as prior restraint on speech.
The District argues the rules meet First Amendment requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if this case differs from prior censorship cases.
Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the heavy presumption against prior restraint.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 11-13
Why it matters
This dispute defines how cities manage public spaces. It balances individual speech rights against public access needs. The outcome shapes future park regulations nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 11-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.