Supreme Court of the United States, 1972

Lewis v. City of New Orleans

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 26, 1972 · Powell

408 U.S. 913; 92 S. Ct. 2499; 33 L. Ed. 2d 321; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 1992 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

93 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Brahy (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974)
City of New Orleans v. Lewis (La. 1972)
Coggin v. State (Tex. App. 2003)
Hawkins v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services (Md. 1992)
Lewis v. City of New Orleans (Supreme Court of the United States 1974)
Lindros v. Governing Board of the Torrance Unified School District (Cal. 1973)
Hess v. State (Ind. 1973)
In the Interest of Doe (Haw. 1994)
State v. Janisczak (Me. 1990)
Raymond Wayne Hill v. The City of Houston, Texas (5th Cir. 1985)
Mesarosh v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Montgomery (Wash. Ct. App. 1982)
Conchito v. City of Tulsa (Okla. Crim. App. 1974)
People v. Gibson (Colo. 1974)
Lillian B. Waters v. Peter G. Peterson (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Thomas v. Board Of Education, Granville Central School District (2d Cir. 1979)
Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District (2d Cir. 1979)
Collin v. Smith (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1978)
Matter of Welfare of SLJ (Minn. 1978)
Matter of Welfare of S. L. J. (Minn. 1978)
Downs v. State (Md. 1976)
Canney v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell (Tenn. 2011)
Jarrett v. Goldman (Portsmouth County Circuit Court 2005)
State v. Poe (Idaho 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

408 U.S. 913

92 S.Ct. 2499

33 L.Ed.2d 321

Mallie LEWIS
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 70-5323.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 26, 1972

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972).

Mr. Justice POWELL, concurring in the result.

Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942), the issue in a case of this kind is whether 'fighting words' were used. Here a police officer, while in the performance of his duty, was called 'G02q d——- M——- F——-' police.

If these words had been addressed by one citizen to another, face to face and in a hostile manner, I would have no doubt that they would be 'fighting words.' But the situation may be different where such words are addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code § 250.1, Comment 4 (Tent.Draft No. 13, 1961).

I see no genuine overbreadth problem in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 405 U.S. 903, 92 S.Ct. 2479.

I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S.Ct. 2488.

Dissent by Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S.Ct. 2484.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.