Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Gooding v. Wilson Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1972Docket #443411
31 L. Ed. 2d 408 92 S. Ct. 1103 405 U.S. 518 1972 U.S. LEXIS 72 Constitutional Law Criminal Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a Georgia statute criminalizing “opprobrious words or abusive language” as unconstitutionally overbroad because it was not narrowly limited by state courts to punishing only “fighting words” that incite immediate violence.

Legal Significance: This case solidified the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, establishing that statutes regulating speech must be narrowly drawn or authoritatively construed by state courts to apply only to unprotected categories like “fighting words,” lest they chill protected expression.

Gooding v. Wilson Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Appellee Wilson was convicted under a Georgia statute for his role in an anti-war protest. The statute made it a misdemeanor for any person to, “without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence … opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace.” During the protest, Wilson said to one police officer, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you,” and to another, “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” After the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, Wilson sought federal habeas corpus relief. He argued that the Georgia statute was facially unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it was vague and overly broad, punishing constitutionally protected speech. The lower federal courts agreed and set aside his conviction. The State of Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a state statute criminalizing the use of “opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace” violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face if it has not been authoritatively construed by state courts to apply only to “fighting words”?

Yes. The Georgia statute is facially unconstitutional for overbreadth because it has Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a state statute criminalizing the use of “opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace” violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face if it has not been authoritatively construed by state courts to apply only to “fighting words”?

Conclusion

This decision significantly narrowed the permissible scope of statutes regulating offensive speech, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l

Legal Rule

A state statute regulating speech can withstand a facial constitutional challenge only Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis rested on the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, which allows Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The Court struck down a Georgia statute criminalizing “opprobrious words or
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+