Essay on Legal Case Analysis
The right of citizens to free assembly is one of the fundamental constitutional rights granted to the US citizens and supported by many court rulings and legal acts implemented within the constitutional framework. At the same time, the right of individuals to free assembly may be challenged under the state regulations or regulations of certain organizations. If such regulations contradict to basic principles and human rights defined at the federal level than they violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of Bruce Rocker’s fans, who are willing to meet him in the airport and to support his political program. In fact, this case raises a number of issues which raise the problem of the limitation of Constitutional rights of the US citizens granted to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as many court ruling and precedents that have already took place in the court practice in the US. As the airport bans fans to meet Bruce Rocker in the airport, the rights of fans are violated as well as the right of Bruce Rocker to the freedom of speech, as he is going to proclaim a speech in the airport in the course of his meeting with his fans. In such a way, the decision of the airport authorities to ban the meeting may be the subject to the lawsuit that may be filed against the authorities of the airport because their decision violates Constitutional rights of the US citizens.
Case brief
In the case of Rocker’s fans, the regulations established by the state authorities, namely by the State of Maryland’s Department of Transportation, come into conflict with the intention of Bruce Rocker’s fans’ intention to organize the meeting of Rocker in the airport. At the same time, the decision of the airport authority to ban the meeting also prevents Rocker from delivery the speech which he was going to deliver upon his arrival to Baltimore, Maryland, US from South Africa. The airport authorities justify their decision by the Regulation B issued by the Baltimore Airport. In such a way, the airport authorities refer to their internal regulations supported by the state’s Department of Transportation. However, fans disagree with the decision of the airport’s authority and insist that this decision violates their constitutional rights to the freedom of assembly. In addition, fans may insist on the violation of the right of Bruce Rocker, the US citizen, to the freedom of speech because the ban of meeting prevents him from delivering the speech before his fans in the Baltimore Airport.
Issues: Does the decision of the Baltimore Airport authorities to ban the meeting in terms of the Regulation B meet the right of US citizens to the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech granted to all US citizens by the First Amendment to the US Constitution? And does the Regulation B meet the Constitutional requirements in terms of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which implies that states and local authorities cannot issue laws and regulations that contradict or violate rights granted to the US citizens by the Constitution and federal laws?
Case background
In the case of Rockers’ fans v. the Baltimore Airport authorities, the case raises a number of legal issues that raise the problem of the possible contradiction of the local regulations to the US Constitution. Moreover, while filing the lawsuit, the fans can refer to other cases that have already took place in the US in relation to the violation of the constitutional right of the US citizens to the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech. In this regard, it is not only the rights of Rocker’s fans that may be violated but also the right of Bruce Rocker to freedom of speech that is under a threat as well.
In fact, the fans of Rocker face the violation of their constitutional right to the freedom of assembly and the right of Rocker to the freedom of speech, whereas the Regulation B issued by the Baltimore Airport authority violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prevents the violation of the US Constitution and federal laws by state and local regulations. Therefore, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution could have been violated as the Baltimore Airport authorities banned the meeting of Bruce Rocker by his fans in their airport.
Furthermore, the case of Rocker’s fans v. the Baltimore Airport authorities, the fans can refer to cases, where the US courts have already protected the right of the US citizens to the freedom of assembly. At this point, it is possible to refer to cases of Edwards v. South Carolina (1962) and Brown v. Louisiana (1966). In both cases, petitioners insisted on the violation of their constitutional right to the freedom of assembly granted to them by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In such a way, the aforementioned cases may be used as precedents that have already protected the right of the US citizens to the freedom of assembly.
In addition, the fans and Rocker can refer to the case of PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980), which protected the right of the US citizens to the freedom of speech granted to them by the First Amendment. This case reveals the conflict between the shopping center owned privately and public delivery of information as the right to the freedom of speech. In this regard, the case of Rocker’s fans may be similar to the case of PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). Therefore, the fans have the legal ground to defend their right to organize the meeting of Rocker in the Baltimore Airport.
Analysis of current implications of the case
In fact, the current implications of the case reveal the violation of constitutional rights of the US citizens, fans of Rocker, by local authorities, the Baltimore Airport authorities, who ban the meeting of Rocker by his fans in the airport, which is the public space, by the Regulation B issued by the authority and the supervision of the State of Maryland Department of Transportation. The key issue that arises in this case is the violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances[1]
The Regulation B issued by the Baltimore Airport and the decision of the airport authorities to ban the meeting on the ground of this regulation violates the right of the fans, who are the US citizens, to the freedom of assembly. The airport is the public space and Americans have the right to assemble. In addition, the right of Rocker to deliver his speech freely is also violated by this decision. In such a way, the Baltimore Airport authority’s decision violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads as follows:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[2].
In fact, local authorities violate constitutional rights of the US citizens, while local regulations contradict to the US Constitution and federal laws that is the direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
In such a way, the violation of the constitutional rights of the US citizens contradicts to fundamental principles of the US justice system. At the same time, the fans of Rocker can refer not only to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which were violated, the fans can refer to similar cases, such as the case of Edwards v. South Carolina (1962). In this case, the 187 petitioners in this case, all of whom were black, organized a march to the South Carolina State House grounds in which small groups of fifteen would walk in an open public area protesting the policies of segregation in their state. The march was peaceful, did not block pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and was conducted in an orderly fashion on public property. A group of approximately thirty police officers confronted the group and ordered its members to disperse or to submit to arrest. The marchers did not disperse, and instead began singing religious and patriotic songs like the Star Spangled Banner. They were arrested and later convicted on a charge of breach of the peace[3].
The petitioners insisted that their Constitutional rights were violated, namely the right to the freedom of assembly granted to them by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In response to their appeals, the Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers. They were convicted of an offense which the South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the convictions, described as “not susceptible of exact definition.” The evidence used to prosecute the marchers did not even remotely prove that their actions were violent. Hence, Justice Stewart found clear constitutional violations in this case. Stewart called the marchers’ actions an exercise of First Amendment rights “in their most pristine and classic form” and emphasized that a state cannot “make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views” as South Carolina attempted to do here[4].
In such a way, the court protected the right of the petitioners to the freedom of assembly.
Furthermore, the fans can refer to the case of Brown v. Louisiana (1966). In this case, for the purpose of peaceably protesting the denial of their constitutional right to equal treatment in a public facility, petitioners, five African Americans, entered the public room of a regional library operated on a segregated basis by the Louisiana parishes where they lived and another parish[5]. The petitioners faced the problem of the violation of their right to the freedom of assembly as they were excluded from the library which was the public facility.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court that denied the violation of petitioners’ rights. The court of appeals justified its decision by following considerations:
First, there is not the slightest evidence to sustain application of the breach of the peace statute to petitioners, since there was nothing to indicate an intent by them to provoke a breach of the peace and there were no circumstances to indicate that such a breach might be occasioned, the demonstration having been peaceful, orderly, and unprovocative, and no patrons having been [383 U.S. 131, 132] present in the library. Petitioners’ conduct was considerably less disruptive than in any of the preceding three situations in which this Court invalidated convictions under the same Louisiana statute or its predecessor, Garner v. Louisiana; Taylor v. Louisiana; and Cox v. Louisiana[6].
Second, the rights of peaceable and orderly protest which petitioners were exercising under the First and Fourteenth Amendments are not confined to verbal expression but embrace other types of expression, including appropriate silent and reproachful presence, such as petitioners used here. Therefore, even if such action came within the statute, it would have to be held that the statute could not constitutionally reach petitioners’ actions in the circumstances of this case[7].
Third, regulation of libraries and other public facilities must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory and may not be used as a pretext for punishing those who exercise their constitutional rights[8].
Finally, the fans and Rocker can refer to the case of PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980), where the right of students to freedom of speech was violated as they attempted to distribute literature at a large shopping center, but the shopping center’s owners wanted to deny them access to the private property[9]. However, the court dismissed the decision of the owners because it violated constitutional right of the US citizens to the freedom of speech[10].
Analysis of future implications of the case
In fact, the case of Rocker’s fans v. the Baltimore Airport authorities reveals the violation of constitutional rights of the US citizens to the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The authorities of the airport cannot limit the US citizens in their constitutional rights. The airport is the public space and the fans would conduct the meeting secured without any threats to the public security. The assembly would be peaceful and in terms to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Instead, the Regulation B apparently violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This is why the fans can count on the positive outcome of the case and the airport authorities should admit the meeting.
Personal opinion of case
In actuality, the fans hold a strong ground because they have the right to freedom of assembly and speech and the airport authorities cannot limit their rights as they are going to conduct the meeting in the public space. The airport authorities should provide Rocker with the right to deliver his speech and the fans with the right to conduct the meeting with Rocker.
Summary/conclusion of case
Thus, the case of Rocker’s fans v. the Baltimore Airport authorities is likely to have positive outcome for the fans because the Regulation B and the decision of the airport authorities violate their constitutional rights granted to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
