City of Houston v. Hill

What This Case Is About

City of Houston v. Hill is a landmark Supreme Court decision establishing that people have a First Amendment right to verbally challenge and criticize police officers. The Court struck down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to “interrupt” a police officer, holding that the ordinance was substantially overbroad and gave police unconstitutional discretion to arrest people for protected speech.

The Facts

Raymond Hill shouted at Houston police officers in an attempt to divert their attention from his friend during a confrontation. He was arrested for “wilfully interrupting a city policeman by verbal challenge during an investigation” under a Houston municipal ordinance.

The ordinance made it unlawful for any person “to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty.” Hill was acquitted in Municipal Court.

After his acquittal, Hill filed suit in federal district court challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality, seeking damages and attorney’s fees. The district court upheld the ordinance, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding it substantially overbroad. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, striking down the ordinance as substantially overbroad under the First Amendment.

Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, made several key findings:

The ordinance criminalized protected speech. The Court found that the ordinance’s enforceable portion — the part about verbal interruptions, as the “assault” and “strike” language was preempted by the Texas Penal Code — broadly prohibited speech directed at police officers. The First Amendment protects “a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers,” and the ordinance swept far too broadly.

The ordinance gave police unconstitutional discretion. Evidence showed that while the ordinance was violated “scores of times daily,” only individuals chosen by police in their unguided discretion were actually arrested. This kind of selective enforcement is constitutionally impermissible.

The ordinance was not limited to “fighting words.” The City argued the ordinance only targeted unprotected “core criminal conduct,” but the Court disagreed. While speech consisting of “fighting words” — words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace — may be prohibited, this ordinance was not limited to such expressions. It broadly applied to any speech that “in any manner” interrupted an officer.

Abstention was inappropriate. The Court rejected the City’s argument that the federal courts should abstain to allow state courts to adopt a narrowing construction. The ordinance was plain and unambiguous, leaving no room for a limiting interpretation.

The Court concluded with a powerful statement: “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

City of Houston v. Hill is essential reading for anyone whose § 1983 case involves speech directed at police:

• You have a right to verbally challenge police. The First Amendment protects your right to criticize, question, and verbally challenge police officers. Officers cannot arrest you simply because your words annoy or offend them.

• Overbroad laws are unconstitutional. Laws that sweep in protected speech along with unprotected conduct can be challenged on their face, even if some applications would be constitutional.

• Police discretion must be limited. Laws that give police unfettered discretion to decide who to arrest based on their subjective reactions to speech are constitutionally suspect.

• “Fighting words” is a narrow exception. Only speech that would provoke a reasonable person to immediate violence qualifies as unprotected “fighting words.” General criticism, verbal challenges, and even profanity directed at officers typically do not meet this standard.

Key Takeaway

City of Houston v. Hill stands for the principle that the First Amendment requires police to tolerate verbal criticism and challenges from the public. A certain amount of “expressive disorder” is the price of living in a free society. If you were arrested for words alone — for criticizing, questioning, or verbally challenging police — this case is powerful authority that your arrest violated the Constitution.