Introduction
The current case touches upon the Fourteenth and First Amendments issues regarding civil rights violations. It included the freedom of speech of the black students. Two hundred young people were protesting against arresting their black friends, emphasizing the racial discrimination causes of the arrest. The protesting group blocked the part of the jail. As a result, all protestors were arrested due to the “trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent” (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). From the plaintiffs’ perspective, their civil rights were violated on a discrimination basis. To be precise, the freedom of speech and petition rights were denied. The Regional Court has denied the lawsuit due to the presence of an adequate reason for the arrest. The group of students appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to have this case solved.
Case Outline
Title: Adderley v. Florida – 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242 (1966) (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.).
Facts of The Case: Harriet Louise Adderley is the representative of the group of protesting students. The primary aim of the students was to protest for the releasing their black friends from the non-public prison (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). Before the arrest, the prison worker and police officers tried to warn students about their unlawful actions of trespass on private property. Students highlighted the race discrimination issues due to the fact that they protested, claiming the rights of black people. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court should solve the questions about the violation of civil rights correlated with the First Amendment and unequal treatment of the different races. The defendants were the prison administration and the state of Florida’s governmental bodies in general.
History of The Case: The doubtful situation took place in state Florida in 1966 (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). The group of the Florida A&M University protested against racial discrimination. They were arrested and convicted of the breakdown of law and order on the streets of Florida. On the next day, a huge group of students (approximately two hundred students) from the same university went to jail to protect the rights of their friends. They tried to claim that the primary reason for the arrest was racial discrimination. The administration of non-public prisons ordered workers to arrest the protestants immediately. The police officers and the prison workers warned students that the prison is private territory and they have no legal right to hold protests here. Prison workers repeatedly asked students to leave the private domain. However, protestants continued blocking the one road within the prison territory.
As a result, all two hundred students were arrested and convicted of trespass with malicious intentions. Later, Harriet Louise Adderley and thirty students appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to solve the case of violation of civil liberties based on discrimination. The prison administration acted based on the private territory protection laws. The arrest can be considered a legal action due to the fact that the prison is regarded as private ownership.
Legal Questions: One of the essential questions that the Supreme Court should have answered was the violation of petitioners’ rights of free speech, assembly, or petition (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). The issue of equal protection was highlighted as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, the Court also was to decide whether the discrimination issue was the primary motif of the prison workers, police, and administration.
Decision or Holdings: The Supreme Court held that the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly or petition were not violated. Thus, constitutionally, the rights of the students were not denied. Judges emphasized that the students were arrested because they denied the order of the police to leave the prison territory. As a result, Court found no evidence proving that the plaintiffs were detained due to discrimination reasons. The breach-of-the-peace violation by the students was stopped aiming to ensure the prison’s security. Thus, the Court decided that the defendant had a rational-legal basis for the arrest. The prison workers’ and police officers’ actions were legal without discrimination connotations.
Verdict and Opinion (Judgement): The Supreme Court preserved the jury’s decisions claiming that there was no violation of the First Amendment. Five out of nine judges voted for the no rights violation. The final verdict included the information about the security concerns of the jail. Judges emphasized that according to the state’s legislation, the citizens are allowed to visit private properties seeking particular services. However, in the current case, petitioners had no such a reason. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the regional jury.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision proclaims that the disrespectful attitude towards the state’s laws should be punished. The public order should be preserved at any cost. The members of society should be able to distinguish between the violation of their rights and legal procedures (Clement, 2018). Understanding the legal responsibilities before the state people live in is essential for law-abiding citizens (Alfieri & Onwuachi-Willig, 2020). The state can ensure the respecting of the rights and freedoms of people only when they respect the laws. The legal actions of the prison administration were not racially discriminative. The vital lesson that should be learned from this legal case is that citizens should know not only their rights but also the rights of entities and organizations. The lack of legal understanding and knowledge about freedom and rights can cause negative consequences.
References
Adderley v. Florida. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.
Alfieri, A., & Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2020). (Re)framing race in civil rights lawyering.The Yale Law Journal, 130(3), 1–30. Web.
Clement, D. (2018). Human rights or social justice? The problem of rights inflation.The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(2), 155–169. Web.