Boos v. Barry (1988) ruled that a D.C. law violated the First Amendment by
banning the display of signs criticizing a foreign government outside that
government’s embassy.

Cameron v. Johnson (1968) said an anti-picketing law did not violate the
First Amendment when taken on its face. It applied to blocking entrances of
public buildings.

Carey v. Brown (1980) struck down a law against almost all residential
picketing. The Court said the law violated the First Amendment by being
content-based.

Carlson v. California (1940) struck down an ordinance that prohibited
loitering or picketing with the intent to stop people working. Picketing is
protected by the First Amendment.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) upheld Jehovah’s Witnesses’ conviction for
parading without a permit, ruling that their First Amendments rights had
not been violated.

Frisby v. Schultz (1988) upheld a city ordinance banning picketing in
neighborhoods. Dissenting justices said the law suppressed First
Amendment-protected speech.

In Grayned v. City of Rockford, the Supreme Court ruled that a city’s
anti-picketing ordinance was over broad, but their anti-noise ordinance was
constitutional.

In New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc. (1938), the Supreme
Court ruled that pickets that were a peaceful and orderly dissemination of
information were lawful. The case arose from a campaign to boycott stores
that would not hire African-Americans.

Snyder v. Phelps (2011) ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the
pressing of civil charges upon a church who picketed the funeral of a slain
Marine.

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) found that a law that made it illegal for a
person to “loiter” around or “picket” a business denied the First Amendment
right of freedom of expression.

Tory v. Cochran (2005) vacated and remanded a decision that had issued a
permanent injunction against Tory, who claimed the injunction infringed on
his First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court in 1953 upheld an injunction preventing union members
from picketing in front of a school that used non-union members, reasoning
that the pickets conflicted with the state’s right to work statute. Justice
Douglas dissented, arguing that picketing is a form of free speech and the
injunction was not narrowly drawn.