Connection lost
Server error
R. A. v. v. City of St. Paul Case Brief
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
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a city’s hate speech ordinance. Even though the law targeted “fighting words”—a category of unprotected speech—it was unconstitutional because it selectively banned speech based on the disfavored subject matter of race, religion, or gender.
Legal Significance: This case established that the government generally cannot regulate speech within a proscribable category (like fighting words or obscenity) based on its content or viewpoint. The First Amendment’s prohibition on content discrimination applies even to unprotected speech.
R. A. v. v. City of St. Paul 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
Petitioner R.A.V., a teenager, and others allegedly burned a cross inside the fenced yard of a Black family. The City of St. Paul charged R.A.V. under its Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. The ordinance criminalized placing on property any symbol, including a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or should know “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, construing it to apply only to conduct that constituted “fighting words” under the doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a category of speech traditionally unprotected by the First Amendment. The state court reasoned that as narrowed, the ordinance was a permissible, content-based regulation narrowly tailored to the compelling governmental interest in protecting the community from bias-motivated threats. R.A.V. challenged the ordinance’s facial constitutionality under the First Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a municipal ordinance that selectively prohibits speech qualifying as “fighting words” on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses—such as race, color, creed, religion, or gender—violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on content-based regulation?
Yes. The ordinance is facially unconstitutional because it imposes a content-based and 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 c
IRAC Legal Analysis
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 municipal ordinance that selectively prohibits speech qualifying as “fighting words” on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses—such as race, color, creed, religion, or gender—violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on content-based regulation?
Conclusion
This landmark decision significantly altered First Amendment jurisprudence by extending the prohibition 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 aliqui
Legal Rule
The First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating speech, including speech within 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 ex
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia assumed, without deciding, that the Minnesota 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 incididu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The government cannot regulate speech based on content or viewpoint, even