| Litigants: | Gregory v. Chicago |
| Arguedate: | December 10 |
| Argueyear: | 1968 |
| Decidedate: | March 10 |
| Decideyear: | 1969 |
| Fullname: | Dick Gregory, et al. v. City of Chicago |
| Prior: | Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois, 39 Ill. 2d 47, 233 N.E.2d 422 (1968) |
| Usvol: | 394 |
| Uspage: | 111 |
| Parallelcitations: | 89 S. Ct. 946; 22 L. Ed. 2d 134; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2295 |
| Holding: | Gregory and others were improperly convicted of disorderly conduct based on the disorderly behavior of bystanders to their First Amendment-protected demonstration. |
| Majority: | Warren |
| Joinmajority: | unanimously |
| Concurrence: | Black |
| Joinconcurrence: | Douglas |
| Concurrence2: | Harlan |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV |
Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned the disorderly conduct charges against Dick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.[1]
Social activists, including comedian Dick Gregory, protested against school segregation in Chicago, Illinois. Twelve years earlier, in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional. The protesters marched from Chicago's city hall to the mayor's residence in the white neighborhood of Bridgeport. After the march concluded, white bystanders began to act unruly and heckle the protesters; when they could not contain the hecklers' activity, police asked the protesters to disperse.[2] The protesters did not disperse and were consequently arrested, and subsequently convicted by a jury, of violating Chicago's disorderly conduct ordinance. The protesters appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. That court upheld their conviction, holding that the protesters' refusal to obey the police order justified the convictions.[3] Aided by the ACLU, the protesters appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the conviction for several reasons:
Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion, argued that arresting demonstrators as a consequence of unruly behavior of bystanders would amount to a "heckler's veto."[4]