Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Barker et al. v. Hardway, President of Bluefield State College, et al., 1969 — 394 U.S. 905 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Barker et al. v. Hardway, President of Bluefield State College, et al.
394 U.S. 905·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 901.
Barker et al. v. Hardway, President of Bluefield State College, et al.
Melvin L. Wulf, Norman Dorsen, and Lewis M. Steel for petitioners.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, and Leo Catsonis, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
[CONCURRENCE — Mr. Justice Fortas,]
Mr. Justice Fortas,
concurring.
I agree that certiorari should be denied. The petitioners were suspended from college not for expressing their opinions on a matter of substance, but for violent and destructive interference with the rights of others. An adequate hearing was afforded them on the issue of suspension. The petitioners contend that their conduct was protected by the First Amendment, but the findings of the District Court, which were accepted by the Court of Appeals, establish that the petitioners here engaged in an aggressive and violent demonstration, and not in peaceful, nondisruptive expression, such as was involved in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U. S. 503. The petitioners’ conduct was therefore clearly not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.