# R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul *1992 Supreme Court decision striking down St. Paul's bias-motivated crime ordinance on First Amendment grounds* ***R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul***, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), is a decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], issued June 22, 1992, that held the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance of [[Saint Paul, Minnesota]] invalid under the First Amendment.[^1] All nine justices agreed on the result but divided over the reasoning. The majority opinion, by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], treated the ordinance as "viewpoint discrimination" that could shut ideas out of public debate.[^1][^2] The case arose from a cross burned in a St. Paul front yard on June 21, 1990, and a juvenile charge under the ordinance.[^3] The ordinance was keyed by its text to "race, color, creed, religion or gender."[^4] The [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] upheld it as "a narrowly tailored means towards accomplishing the compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order."[^5] The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. Its opinion noted several times that the same conduct could have been charged under other Minnesota statutes.[^6] ## What ### The ordinance The St. Paul ordinance made it disorderly conduct, punishable as a misdemeanor, to place on public or private property "a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika." It applied where the person knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that the item "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."[^4] ### The charge and the state courts According to the facts recited in the case, R.A.V. and other teenagers allegedly made a cross out of broken chair legs. They set it up and burned it in the front yard of a Black family who lived across the street from the house where R.A.V. was staying.[^3][^1] R.A.V. was a juvenile at the time. He faced two counts, one of them under the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance.[^3] R.A.V. moved to dismiss the ordinance count. He argued that the ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content-based. The trial court agreed.[^5] The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. It relied on its own earlier readings of the phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" to confine the ordinance to fighting words in the sense of *Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire*. On that basis it rejected the overbreadth claim and held the ordinance was not impermissibly content-based.[^5] The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari.[^5] ### The holding The U.S. Supreme Court considered itself bound by the Minnesota court's reading. It therefore took the ordinance as reaching only fighting words.[^6] It did not decide the overbreadth question. The majority assumed that everything the ordinance covered could be banned as fighting words. Even so, it found the ordinance unconstitutional on its face, because the ordinance singled out otherwise permissible speech according to its subject matter.[^6][^2] ### The opinions Five justices joined Scalia's opinion for the Court: Scalia himself, Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], and Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[David Souter]] and [[Clarence Thomas]].[^7] Justice [[Byron White]] concurred only in the judgment. Justices [[Harry Blackmun]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] joined his opinion in full, and Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] joined it in part.[^7] Blackmun and Stevens each also filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. White and Blackmun joined part of Stevens's opinion.[^7] ### Later limitation Eleven years later, in *Virginia v. Black* (2003), the Court sustained part of a Virginia law. That part made it a crime to burn a cross in public with intent to intimidate. The Court described such an act as expression that "has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."[^8] ## When - June 21, 1990: the cross is burned in a St. Paul front yard, and R.A.V. is charged under the ordinance.[^3] - After the charge, the trial court dismisses the ordinance count, and the Minnesota Supreme Court reinstates it.[^5] - June 22, 1992: the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case. Scalia writes for the majority, which strikes down the ordinance on First Amendment grounds.[^1] - 2003: *Virginia v. Black* upholds part of Virginia's cross-burning statute.[^8] ## In the at-issue record The project's Ramsey County at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-086 (rank 86, Tier V) and Ramsey County history row HE-0201 address the case. They state that a 1990 cross-burning prosecution brought through the office of the [[Ramsey County Attorney]] led to the ordinance ruling the Supreme Court issued in 1992. The pair presents this as a county charging decision that ended in a First Amendment ruling against the instrument it was brought under. The project's validated Warren E. Burger dossier (§VII) lists Tom Foley as Ramsey County Attorney from 1979 to 1994, the tenure that covers the prosecution. The pack carries no primary charging document. The Supreme Court's opinion establishes the outcome.[^1] The opinion also recorded that the conduct could have been prosecuted under other Minnesota statutes.[^6] ## In the Minnesota record ### What - The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, a misdemeanor disorderly-conduct provision, was used to charge a juvenile over a June 1990 cross burning.[^4][^3] - The U.S. Supreme Court held the ordinance facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.[^6] ### When - June 21, 1990: the cross burning in St. Paul.[^3] - June 22, 1992: the Supreme Court decision.[^1] ### Where - St. Paul, [[Minnesota]].[^1] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, 505 U.S. 377 (June 22, 1992) — decision date, majority opinion by Justice Scalia, ordinance struck down on First Amendment grounds, and the facts recited. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/ [^2]: Wikipedia, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul* (rev. 1380717710, retrieved October 28, 2026) — unanimity of the result and the "viewpoint discrimination" rationale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul [^3]: Wikipedia, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, "Facts and procedural background" (retrieved October 28, 2026) — the June 21, 1990 cross burning and the two counts charged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, 505 U.S. 377 (June 22, 1992) — text of the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance as quoted in the opinion. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/ [^5]: Wikipedia, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, "Facts and procedural background" (retrieved October 28, 2026) — trial court dismissal, the Minnesota Supreme Court's reversal and quoted rationale, and the grant of certiorari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul [^6]: Supreme Court of the United States, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, 505 U.S. 377 (June 22, 1992) — acceptance of the Minnesota construction, the holding of facial unconstitutionality, and the observation that other Minnesota statutes reached the conduct. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/ [^7]: Wikipedia, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, "Decision" (retrieved October 28, 2026) — the lineup of the majority opinion and the concurrences in the judgment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul [^8]: Wikipedia, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, "Limitation" (retrieved October 28, 2026) — *Virginia v. Black* (2003) and its quoted description of cross burning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul