Boos v. Barry (No. 86-803) 255 U.S.App.D.C.19, 798 F.2d 1450, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus	Opinion [ O'Connor ]	Concurrence [ Brennan ]	CDInPart [ Rehnquist ]
HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version

REHNQUIST, C.J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

485 U.S. 312

Boos v. Barry

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

---

No. 86-803 Argued: November 9, 1987 --- Decided: March 22, 1988

---

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICES WHITE and BLACKMUN join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons stated by Judge Bork in his majority opinion below, I would uphold that portion of § 22-1115 of the District of Columbia Code that prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to [p339] bring that foreign government into "public odium" or "public disrepute." However, I agree with JUSTICE O'CONNOR that § 22-1115's congregation clause is not unconstitutional, and that the exemption for labor picketing does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, so I join in Parts III and IV of the majority opinion.