City of Houston v. Hill, , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1987. The case concerned a municipal ordinance then in effect in Houston, Texas, which criminalized interrupting a police officer in the performance of his duties. The Court held that this ordinance was overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court also considered whether abstention and waiting for the state courts to make a ruling on the ordinance was appropriate, and it held that absention was not appropriate for a facial challenge or where the entire statute was unconstitutional.Syllabus of City of Houston v. Hill, .
Background Upon shouting at police in an attempt to divert their attention from his friend during a confrontation, Hill was arrested for "willfully... interrupt[ing] a city policeman... by verbal challenge during an investigation" in violation of a municipal ordinance making it unlawful for any person "to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty." After his acquittal in Municipal Court, Hill brought suit in federal District Court challenging the ordinance's constitutionality and seeking, among other things, damages and attorney's fees. The District Court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the ordinance was substantially overbroad, since its literal wording punished and might deter a significant range of protected speech.
References
External links