Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
City of Houston v. Hill
United States Supreme Court
482 U.S. 451, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987)
Although the first amendment protects freedom of speech, not all speech is protected. Some speech is subject to government regulation.
But if a statute arguably regulates both unprotected and protected speech, then it might be challenged as being unconstitutional for over breath.
We explore the overbreadth doctrine in city of Houston versus Hill.
Political advocate Raymond Hill was arrested multiple times for violating a Houston ordinance that criminalized interrupting any police officer in the performance of duties.
Hill was never convicted, but he eventually filed suit in federal court to challenge the ordinance's constitutionality, both as applied to him and on its face, meaning as written. Hill argued that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't clearly identify what conduct it prohibited and was unconstitutionally overbroad because given its plain meaning, it prohibited a broad range of constitutionally protected speech.
The district court upheld the ordinance as constitutional.
The court of appeals reversed. It held that the ordinance wasn't unconstitutionally vague because the word interrupt had a sufficiently clear everyday meaning to provide notice of what conduct was prohibited.
But the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad because given that plain meaning, the ordinance penalized a significant range of speech protected by the first amendment. Houston appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-houston-v-hill
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-houston-v-hill
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
City of Houston v. Hill
United States Supreme Court
482 U.S. 451, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987)
Although the first amendment protects freedom of speech, not all speech is protected. Some speech is subject to government regulation.
But if a statute arguably regulates both unprotected and protected speech, then it might be challenged as being unconstitutional for over breath.
We explore the overbreadth doctrine in city of Houston versus Hill.
Political advocate Raymond Hill was arrested multiple times for violating a Houston ordinance that criminalized interrupting any police officer in the performance of duties.
Hill was never convicted, but he eventually filed suit in federal court to challenge the ordinance's constitutionality, both as applied to him and on its face, meaning as written. Hill argued that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't clearly identify what conduct it prohibited and was unconstitutionally overbroad because given its plain meaning, it prohibited a broad range of constitutionally protected speech.
The district court upheld the ordinance as constitutional.
The court of appeals reversed. It held that the ordinance wasn't unconstitutionally vague because the word interrupt had a sufficiently clear everyday meaning to provide notice of what conduct was prohibited.
But the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad because given that plain meaning, the ordinance penalized a significant range of speech protected by the first amendment. Houston appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-houston-v-hill
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-houston-v-hill
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
