534 U.S. 316122 S.Ct. 775151 L.Ed.2d 783
CAREN CRONK THOMAS and WINDY CITY  HEMP DEVELOPMENT BOARD,  PETITIONERSv.CHICAGO  PARK DISTRICT
No. 00-1249.
United States Supreme Court
Argued December 3, 2001Decided January 15, 2002

Syllabus
Respondent Chicago Park District adopted an ordinance requiring individuals to  obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events in public parks. The  ordinance provides that the Park District may deny a permit on any of 13  specified grounds, must process applications within 28 days, and must explain  its reasons for a denial. An unsuccessful applicant may appeal, first, to the  Park Districts general superintendent and then to state court. Petitioners,  dissatisfied that the Park District has denied some, though not all, of their  applications for permits to hold rallies advocating the legalization of  marijuana, filed a 42 U.S. C. 1983 suit, alleging, inter alia, that the  ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. The District Court granted the Park  District summary judgment, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Held:       1.A content-neutral permit scheme regulating uses (including speech uses)  of a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in  Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51. Freedman is inapposite because, unlike the  motion picture censorship scheme in that case, the Park Districts ordinance is  not subject-matter censorship but content-neutral time, place, and manner  regulation of the use of a public forum. None of the grounds for denying a  permit has anything to do with the content of speech. Indeed, the ordinance is  not directed at communicative activity as such, but to all activity in a public  park. And its object is not to exclude particular communication, but to  coordinate multiple uses of limited space; assure preservation of park  facilities; prevent dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible uses; and assure  financial accountability for damage caused by an event. Pp.47.
2. A content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation can be applied in  such a manner as to stifle free expression. It thus must contain adequate  standards to guide an officials decision and render that decision subject to  effective judicial review. See Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 271. The Park  Districts ordinance meets this test. That the ordinance describes grounds on  which the Park District may deny a permit does not mean that it allows the Park  District to waive requirements for some favored speakers. Such a waiver would be  unconstitutional, but this abuse must be dealt with if and when a pattern of  unlawful favoritism appears, rather than by insisting upon a rigid, no-waiver  application of the permit requirements. Pp. 79.
3.Because the Park Districts ordinance is not subject to Freedmans  procedural requirements, this Court does not reach the question whether the  requirement of prompt judicial review means a prompt judicial determination or  the prompt commencement of judicial proceedings. Pp. 910.  227 F.3d 921, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
On writ of certiorari to the united states court of  appeals for the seventh circuit
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.


1
This case presents the question whether a municipal park ordinance  requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events  must, consistent with the First Amendment, contain the procedural safeguards  described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965).


2
* Respondent, the Chicago Park District (Park District), is responsible for  operating public parks and other public property in Chicago. See Ill. Comp.  Stat., ch. 70, 1505/7.01 (2001). Pursuant to its authority to establish by  ordinance all needful rules and regulations for the government and protection of  parks and other property under its jurisdiction, 1505/7.02, the Park District  adopted an ordinance that requires a person to obtain a permit in order to  conduct a public assembly, parade, picnic, or other event involving more than  fifty individuals, or engage in an activity such as creat[ing] or emit[ting] any  Amplified Sound. Chicago Park Dist. Code, ch. VII, C.3.a(1), C.3.a(6). The  ordinance provides that [a]pplications for permits shall be processed in order  of receipt, C.5.a, and the Park District must decide whether to grant or deny an  application within 14 days unless, by written notice to the applicant, it  extends the period an additional 14 days, C.5.c. Applications can be denied on  any of 13 specified grounds. C.5.e.1 If the Park District denies an application,  it must clearly set forth in writing the grounds for denial and, where feasible,  must propose measures to cure defects in the application. C.5.d, C.5.e. When the  basis for denial is prior receipt of a competing application for the same time  and place, the Park District must suggest alternative times or places. C.5.e. An  unsuccessful applicant has seven days to file a written appeal to the General  Superintendent of the Park District, who must act on the appeal within seven  days. C.6.a. If the General Superintendent affirms a permit denial, the  applicant may seek judicial review in state court by common-law certiorari. See  Norton v. Nicholson, 187 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1057-1058, 543 N.E. 2d 1053, 1059  (1989).


3
Petitioners have applied to the Park District on several occasions for  permits to hold rallies advocating the legalization of marijuana. The Park  District has granted some permits and denied others. Not satisfied, petitioners  filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 in the United States District Court  for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging, inter alia, that the Park  Districts ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. The District Court granted  summary judgment in favor of the Park District, and the United States Court of  Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 227 F.3d 921 (2000). We granted  certiorari. 532 U.S. 1051 (2001).

II

4
The First Amendments guarantee of the freedom of speech, or of the press  prohibits a wide assortment of government restraints upon expression, but the  core abuse against which it was directed was the scheme of licensing laws  implemented by the monarch and Parliament to contain the evils of the printing  press in 16th- and 17-century England. The Printing Act of 1662 had prescribed  what could be printed, who could print, and who could sell. Mayton, Toward a  Theory of First Amendment Process: Injunctions of Speech, Subsequent Punishment,  and the Costs of the Prior Restraint Doctrine, 67 Cornell L.Rev. 245, 248  (1982). It punished the publication of any book or pamphlet without a license  and required that all works be submitted for approval to a government official,  who wielded broad authority to suppress works that he found to be heretical,  seditious, schismatical, or offensive. F. Siebert, Freedom of the Press in  England, 14761776, p.240 (1952). The English licensing system expired at the end  of the 17th century, but the memory of its abuses was still vivid enough in  colonial times that Blackstone warned against the restrictive power of such a  licenseran administrative official who enjoyed unconfined authority to pass  judgment on the content of speech. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of  England 152 (1769).


5
In Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), we confronted a state law that  enacted a strikingly similar system of prior restraint for motion pictures. It  required that every motion picture film be submitted to a Board of Censors  before the film was shown anywhere in the State. The Board enjoyed authority to  reject films that it considered obscene or that tend[ed], in the judgment of the  Board, to debase or corrupt morals or incite to crimes, characteristics defined  by the statute in broad terms. Id., at 52, n.2. The statute punished the  exhibition of a film not submitted to the Board for advance approval, even where  the film would have received a license had it been properly submitted. It was no  defense that the content of the film was protected by the First Amendment.


6
We recognized in Freedman that a scheme conditioning expression on a  licensing bodys prior approval of content presents peculiar dangers to  constitutionally protected speech. Id., at 57. [T]he censors business is to  censor, ibid., and a licensing body likely will overestimate the dangers of  controversial speech when determining, without regard to the films actual effect  on an audience, whether speech is likely to incite or to corrupt [the] morals,  id., at 52, n.2. Cf. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 561,  and n.11 (1975). In response to these grave dangers of a censorship system,  Freedman, supra, at 58, we held that a film licensing process must contain  certain procedural safeguards in order to avoid constituting an invalid prior  restraint: (1) any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only for a  specified brief period during which the status quo must be maintained; (2)  expeditious judicial review of that decision must be available; and (3) the  censor must bear the burden of going to court to suppress the speech and must  bear the burden of proof once in court. FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215,  227 (1990) (principal opinion of OConnor, J., joined by Stevens, and Kennedy,  JJ.) (citing Freedman, supra, at 5860).


7
Petitioners contend that the Park District, like the Board of Censors in  Freedman, must initiate litigation every time it denies a permit and that the  ordinance must specify a deadline for judicial review of a challenge to a permit  denial. We reject those contentions. Freedman is inapposite because the  licensing scheme at issue here is not subject-matter censorship but  content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation of the use of a public forum.  The Park Districts ordinance does not authorize a licensor to pass judgment on  the content of speech: None of the grounds for denying a permit has anything to  do with what a speaker might say. Indeed, the ordinance (unlike the classic  censorship scheme) is not even directed to communicative activity as such, but  rather to all activity conducted in a public park. The picnicker and  soccer-player, no less than the political activist or parade marshal, must apply  for a permit if the 50-person limit is to be exceeded. And the object of the  permit system (as plainly indicated by the permissible grounds for permit  denial) is not to exclude communication of a particular content, but to  coordinate multiple uses of limited space, to assure preservation of the park  facilities, to prevent uses that are dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible under  the Park Districts rules, and to assure financial accountability for damage  caused by the event. As the Court of Appeals well put it: [T]o allow unregulated  access to all comers could easily reduce rather than enlarge the parks utility  as a forum for speech. 227 F.3d 921, 924 (CA7 2000).


8
We have never required that a content-neutral permit scheme regulating  speech in a public forum adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in  Freedman.2 A licensing standard which gives an official authority to censor the  content of a speech differs toto coelo from one limited by its terms, or by  nondiscriminatory practice, to considerations of public safety and the like.  Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 282 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in  result). [T]he [permit] required is not the kind of prepublication license  deemed a denial of liberty since the time of John Milton but a ministerial,  police routine for adjusting the rights of citizens so that the opportunity for  effective freedom of speech may be preserved. Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S.  395, 403 (1953). Regulations of the use of a public forum that ensure the safety  and convenience of the people are not inconsistent with civil liberties but  [are] one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which [civil  liberties] ultimately depend. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941).  Such a traditional exercise of authority does not raise the censorship concerns  that prompted us to impose the extraordinary procedural safeguards on the film  licensing process in Freedman.

III

9
Of course even content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions can be  applied in such a manner as to stifle free expression. Where the licensing  official enjoys unduly broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny  a permit, there is a risk that he will favor or disfavor speech based on its  content. See Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 131 (1992).  We have thus required that a time, place, and manner regulation contain adequate  standards to guide the officials decision and render it subject to effective  judicial review. See Niemotko, supra, at 271. Petitioners contend that the Park  Districts ordinance fails this test.3


10
We think not. As we have described, the Park District may deny a permit  only for one or more of the reasons set forth in the ordinance. See n.1, supra.  It may deny, for example, when the application is incomplete or contains a  material falsehood or misrepresentation; when the applicant has damaged Park  District property on prior occasions and has not paid for the damage; when a  permit has been granted to an earlier applicant for the same time and place;  when the intended use would present an unreasonable danger to the health or  safety of park users or Park District employees; or when the applicant has  violated the terms of a prior permit. See Chicago Park Dist. Code, ch. VII,  C.5.e. Moreover, the Park District must process applications within 28 days,  C.5.c, and must clearly explain its reasons for any denial, C.5.e. These grounds  are reasonably specific and objective, and do not leave the decision to the whim  of the administrator. Forsyth County, 505 U.S., at 133. They provide narrowly  drawn, reasonable and definite standards to guide the licensors determination,  ibid. (quoting Niemotko, supra, at 271). And they are enforceable on reviewfirst  by appeal to the General Superintendent of the Park District, see Chicago Park  Dist. Code, ch. VII, C.6.a, and then by writ of common-law certiorari in the  Illinois courts, see Norton v. Nicholson, 187 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 543 N.E. 2d  1053 (1989), which provides essentially the same type of review as that provided  by the Illinois administrative procedure act, see Nowicki v. Evanston Fair  Housing Review Bd., 62 Ill. 2d 11, 14, 338 N. E. 2d 186, 188 (1975).


11
Petitioners contend that the criteria set forth in the ordinance are  insufficiently precise because they are described as grounds on which the Park  District may deny a permit, rather than grounds on which it must do so. This,  they contend, allows the Park District to waive the permit requirements for some  favored speakers, while insisting upon them for others. That is certainly not  the intent of the ordinance, which the Park District has reasonably interpreted  to permit overlooking only those inadequacies that, under the circumstances, do  no harm to the policies furthered by the application requirements. See Tr. of  Oral Arg. 3132. Granting waivers to favored speakers (or, more precisely,  denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional, but we  think that this abuse must be dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful  favoritism appears, rather than by insisting upon a degree of rigidity that is  found in few legal arrangements. On petitioners theory, every obscenity law, or  every law placing limits upon political expenditures, contains a constitutional  flaw, since it merely permits, but does not require, prosecution. The  prophylaxis achieved by insisting upon a rigid, no-waiver application of the  ordinance requirements would be far outweighed, we think, by the accompanying  senseless prohibition of speech (and of other activity in the park) by  organizations that fail to meet the technical requirements of the ordinance but  for one reason or another pose no risk of the evils that those requirements are  designed to avoid. On balance, we think the permissive nature of the ordinance  furthers, rather than constricts, free speech.


12
* * *


13
Because the Park Districts ordinance is not subject to Freedmans procedural  requirements, we do not reach one of the questions on which we granted  certiorari, and on which the Courts of Appeals are divided: whether the  requirement of prompt judicial review means a prompt judicial determination or  the prompt commencement of judicial proceedings. Compare Nightclubs, Inc. v.  Paducah, 202 F. 3d 884, 892893 (CA6 2000); Baby Tam & Co. v. Las Vegas, 154 F.  3d 1097, 1101 (CA9 1998); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince Georges County,  58 F. 3d 988, 9981001 (CA4 1995) (en banc), with Boss Capital, Inc. v.  Casselberry, 187 F. 3d 1251, 12551257 (CA11 1999); TKs Video, Inc. v. Denton  County, 24 F. 3d 705, 709 (CA5 1994); Graff v. Chicago, 9 F. 3d 1309, 13241325  (CA7 1993) (en banc); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp.  Authority, 984 F. 2d 1319, 1327 (CA1 1993). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm  the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


14
It is so ordered.



Notes:


1
  Section C.5.e of the ordinance provides in relevant part:



15
To the extent permitted by law, the Park District may deny an application  for permit if the applicant or the person on whose behalf the application for  permit was made has on prior occasions made material misrepresentations  regarding the nature or scope of an event or activity previously permitted or  has violated the terms of prior permits issued to or on behalf of the applicant.  The Park District may also deny an application for permit on any of the  following grounds:


16
(1)     the application for permit (including any required attachments and  submissions) is not fully completed and executed;


17
(2)     the applicant has not tendered the required application fee with  the application or has not tendered the required user fee, indemnification  agreement, insurance certificate, or security deposit within the times  prescribed by the General Superintendent;


18
(3)     the application for permit contains a material falsehood or  misrepresentation;


19
(4)     the applicant is legally incompetent to contract or to sue and be  sued;


20
(5)     the applicant or the person on whose behalf the application for  permit was made has on prior occasions damaged Park District property and has  not paid in full for such damage, or has other outstanding and unpaid debts to  the Park District;


21
(6)     a fully executed prior application for permit for the same time and  place has been received, and a permit has been or will be granted to a prior  applicant authorizing uses or activities which do not reasonably permit multiple  occupancy of the particular park or part hereof;


22
(7)     the use or activity intended by the applicant would conflict with  previously planned programs organized and conducted by the Park District and  previously scheduled for the same time and place;


23
(8)     the proposed use or activity is prohibited by or inconsistent with  the classifications and uses of the park or part thereof designated pursuant to  this chapter, Section C.1., above;


24
(9)     the use or activity intended by the applicant would present an  unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the applicant, or other users of  the park, of Park District Employees or of the public;


25
(10)     the applicant has not complied or cannot comply with applicable  licensure requirements, ordinances or regulations of the Park District  concerning the sale or offering for sale of any goods or services;


26
(11)     the use or activity intended by the applicant is prohibited by  law, by this Code and ordinances of the Park District, or by the regulations of  the General Superintendent .



2
  FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), which applied two of the Freedman requirements, involved a licensing scheme that target[ed] businesses purveying sexually explicit speech, id., at 224.


3
  Petitioners do not argue that the Park Districts ordinance fails to satisfy  other requirements of our time, place, and manner jurisprudence, under which the  permit scheme must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly  tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample  alternatives for communication. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S.  123, 130 (1992); see also Clark v. Community for Creative NonViolence, 468 U.S.  288, 293 (1984).


