Skip to content

Constitutional LawFree speech

Cohen v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 7, 1971

Full citation

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

Paul Robert Cohen

man who wore the jacketappellant

California

stateappellee

The parties: Paul Robert Cohen v. California.

Brief

Facts

On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was in the corridor outside a municipal court division in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. He wore a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft," which were plainly visible. Women and children were present in the corridor. Cohen testified that he wore the jacket, knowing what it said, to tell the public how deeply he felt against the Vietnam War and the draft. He was arrested. According to the state Court of Appeal's account, he did not engage in or threaten violence, and no one else committed or threatened violence because of his conduct. He made no loud or unusual noise, and no evidence showed that he uttered any sound before his arrest. When he entered a courtroom in the building, he took off the jacket and held it folded over his arm. A policeman sent the presiding judge a note suggesting that Cohen be held in contempt. The judge declined, and Cohen was arrested only after he left the courtroom. California prosecuted him under the part of Penal Code § 415 that bars maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct. The only conduct the State sought to punish was the communication itself. Cohen was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment.

Issues

  1. May California, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, convict a person of disturbing the peace by offensive conduct for wearing a jacket bearing a four-letter expletive in a courthouse corridor?
  2. Can the State justify the conviction by the theory that the words were inherently likely to provoke violence, by an interest in protecting unwilling viewers, or by an interest in keeping public discourse at a suitable level?

Holding

California could not constitutionally convict Cohen of offensive conduct for displaying the four-letter expletive on his jacket. The conviction rested on speech alone, fit no established exception, and the State gave no more particularized and compelling reason for punishing it.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/cohen-v-california