Grayned v. City of Rockford

1. Antipicketing ordinance, virtually identical with one invalidated as violative of equal protection in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92, is likewise invalid. P. 107.

2. Antinoise ordinance prohibiting a person while on grounds adjacent to a building in which a school is in session from willfully making a noise or disversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the school session is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The ordinance is not vague since, with fair warning, it prohibits only actual or imminent, and willful, interference with normal school activity, and is not a broad invitation to discriminatory enforcement. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, distinguished. The ordinance is not overbroad as unduly interfering with First Amendment rights since expressive activity is prohibited only if it "materially disrupts classwork." Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, 513. Pp. 107–121.

46 Ill. 2d 486, 263 N.E.2d 866, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, C.J., and , and , JJ., joined. , J., filed a statement joining in the judgment and in Part I of the Court's opinion and concurring in the result as to Part II of the opinion, post, p. 121. , J., filed an opinion dissenting in part and joining in Part I of the Court's opinion, post, p. 121.

Sophia H. Hall argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were William R. Ming, Jr., and Aldus S. Mitchell.

William E. Collins argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were A. Curtis Washburn and Charles F. Thomas.