skip navigation
search

Boos v. Barry (No. 86-803)
255 U.S.App.D.C.19, 798 F.2d 1450, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ O'Connor ]
Concurrence
[ Brennan ]
CDInPart
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

REHNQUIST, C.J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


485 U.S. 312

Boos v. Barry

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT


No. 86-803 Argued: November 9, 1987 --- Decided: March 22, 1988

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 [p339] 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.