◆ SpookStack

14 Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. ference with Hberty of the person, or to the conspiracy to deport, exclude, and interfere bodily with the respondents in prrsuit of their peaceabic activities, the decree contains a saving clause of which the following is typical: “except in so far as such Personal restraint is in aecordance with any right of search and seizure.” Tn the light of this reservation we think there yas no occasion for the Cirenit Court of Appeals to diseuss the question whether exemp- tion from the scarehes and sciztres proseribed by the Fourth Amendment is afforded by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth, and we have no oteasion to consider or decide any such question, Third. Tt remains to consider the objections to the decree. . Sec- tion A deals with liberty of the person and prohibits the petitioners from ezelnding or remaving the respondents or persons acting with them from Jersey City, exercising personal restraint over them withont warrant or confining them without lawful arrest and production of them for prompt judicial hearing, saving lawful search and seizure; or interfering with their free acersa to the streets, parks, or public places of the city. The argument is that this section of the decree is so vague in its terms as to be impractical of enforcement or obedience. We agree with the court below that the objection is not well founded. Section B deals with liberty of the mind. Paragraph 1} enjeing the petitioners from interfering with the right of the respondents, their agents and those acting with them, to communicate their views as individuals to others on the streets in an orderly and peaceable manner, It reserves to the petitioners full liberty to enforce law and order by lawful search and seizure or by arrest and production before a judicial officer. We think this paragraph un- assailable. Paragraphs 2? and 3 enjoin interference with the distribution of ciretlars, handbills and plaeards. The decree attempts to formu- late the conditions under which respondents and their sympathizers may distribute such literature free of interference. The ordinance absolutely prohibiting such distribution is void under our decision in Lovell v. Griffin, supra, and petitionera so concede, We think the decree rors ton far, All respondents are entitled to is a deeree declaring the ordinance void and enjoining the petitioners frem en- forcing it. Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. 15 o with public meetings. Although the eourt below held the ordinance yoid, the deerce enjoins the pe iti ag to the manner in which they shall administer it whew ican initial command that the petitioners shall not pine viding ious restraint’? upon the respondents in respect 0 polaing meetin ovided they apply for a permit as required by the or vance this is foflowed by an enumeration of the conditions under whieh wit may be granted or denied. We think this is wrong. vAe the oedinance is void, the respondents are entitled to a fer declaring and an injunction against its nanan ty ae pee tioners. They are Free to hold meetin ee a an i to the terms of the d - vith ee the ordinance, as the decree, in effect, does. lain. othe bill should be dismissed as to all save the individual HM ais tiffs. and Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 or the deere ld _ be modified as indicated. In other respects the affirmed. Paragraph 4 has to d