Notable Items:

Petitioner: Hill
Respondent: State of Colorado
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: Hill v. Colorado (2000)


Petitioner's Claims:

That the statute is a violation of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (count 5)
That the impairment of the right to distribute written materials was a violation of the right to a free press. (count 6)
That the statutory consent requirement was invalid as a prior restraint tantamount to a licensing requirement.
That the statute was vague and overbroad.
That the statute was a content based restriction that was not justified by a compelling state interest.
Content based because the content of the speech must be examined to determine whether it "constitutes oral protest, counseling and education"; and that it is "viewpointbased" because the statute "makes it likely that prosecution will occur based on displeasure with the position taken by the speaker." See Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 462 (1980).
But see narrowing above in "Facts".


Constitutionality of the Colorado statute.
"The question is whether the First Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener."


Affirmed. Colorado statute's restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional.


Stevens majority opinion (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer)

Souter concurrance (O'Connor, Ginsberg, Breyer)

Scalia dissent (Thomas)

Kennedy dissent