# Boos v. Barry

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 22, 1988 · 485 U.S. 312

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431237

## Case

- **Full name:** BOOS Et Al. v. BARRY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 22, 1988
- **Citations:** 485 U.S. 312; 108 S. Ct. 1157; 99 L. Ed. 2d 333; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1445
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rehnquist
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Ii-B, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Scalia, Members, Ii-A, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 949 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431237

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a Washington, DC regulation making it unlawful, within 500 feet of a foreign embassy, either to display any sign that tends to bring the foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute” amounts to a content-based speech restriction because it focuses o…
- holding that when a court determines that a municipal ordinance is content-based, the strict-scrutiny standard of review applies and the municipality must show that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve a c…
- holding that content-based restrictions on political speech in public forum must be “necessary to serve a compelling state interest and ... narrowly drawn to achieve that end” (quoting Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2…
- finding that an ordinance restricting picketing near a foreign embassy was not the least restrictive means of serving the asserted government interest; existence of an analogous, but more narrowly drawn, federal statute showed that “a less restrictive alternative is readily av…
- holding that to satisfy “most exacting scrutiny,” the government must “show that the ‘regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end’” (citing Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Loc. Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983))

## Opinion text

Chief Justice Rehnquist,
with whom
Justices White and Blackmun join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For the reasons stated by Judge Bork in his majority opinion below, I would uphold that portion of § 22-1115 of the District of Columbia Code that prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to *339 bring that foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” However, I agree with Justice O’Connor that §22-1115’s congregation clause is not unconstitutional and that the exemption for labor picketing does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, so I join in Parts III and IV of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431237. Public record. Not legal advice.