---
title: "Feiner v. New York | Civil Rights and Civil Liberties"
description: "Feiner v. New York is the 1951 Supreme Court case that upheld arresting a speaker when public disorder seemed likely, in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york"
type: "key-term"
subject: "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties"
unit: "Unit 2"
---

# Feiner v. New York | Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

## Definition

Feiner v. New York is a 1951 Supreme Court case about free speech and assembly. The Court said the government could stop a speech if it seemed likely to trigger a breach of the peace.

## What It Is

Feiner v. New York is a Supreme Court case in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties that shows the limit of free speech when a crowd is close to violence. Paul Feiner was arrested after giving a street-corner speech about civil rights and local government criticism, and the Court said the arrest was constitutional because officials feared the speech would cause disorder.

What makes this case useful in the course is that it sits right at the edge between protected expression and public safety. Feiner was not punished simply for having a political opinion. The issue was that the setting mattered: he was speaking to a crowd in a tense public space, and police believed the situation could turn into a breach of the peace.

The decision came out 6 to 3, which tells you the Court was not treating this as an easy or settled question. It reflects an older free speech standard that gave more room for government action when speech seemed likely to provoke immediate unrest. That makes Feiner part of the long conversation about how far the First Amendment reaches in real-world demonstrations, rallies, and street protests.

A lot of students confuse this case with the idea that speech is only protected if it is calm or popular. That is not the rule. The deeper point is that protected speech can still be limited in narrow situations when the government can point to a serious, immediate threat to order. In other words, the Court was not deciding whether civil rights criticism was allowed in general. It was deciding whether the police could intervene in that specific volatile moment.

If you are reading this case in a unit on freedom of assembly, think of it as a reminder that the First Amendment protects both the message and the right to gather, but neither right is absolute. Courts often ask what the speaker said, where they said it, how the crowd reacted, and whether officials had a real reason to act before violence broke out.

## Why It Matters

Feiner v. New York matters because it shows how Civil Rights and Civil Liberties classes treat free speech as a balancing act, not a simple yes-or-no right. The case helps explain why courts sometimes let the government step in during demonstrations, even when the speech involves political protest and civil rights claims.

It also gives you a concrete example of how freedom of assembly can be limited by public order concerns. That makes it useful for comparing cases where the Court protected protest more strongly, especially when students are tracking how the law changes across time. Feiner is part of the path from older, broader policing powers toward later First Amendment protections that became more speech-protective.

This case is also good for analyzing the setting of a protest. A speech on a quiet campus lawn, a march route, or a crowded street corner can raise different legal questions because the government reacts not just to words, but to the risk of immediate disorder. That is a major theme in the study of civil liberties: the same speech can be treated differently depending on context, audience, and danger.

## Connections

### Free Speech

Feiner v. New York is really a free speech case that tests how far the First Amendment goes when speech creates tension in public. The Court did not say political criticism is unprotected in general. Instead, it focused on whether the circumstances made government intervention reasonable because disorder seemed close.

### Clear and Present Danger

This case connects closely to the older clear and present danger idea because the Court accepted the possibility of immediate harm as a reason to act. That matters in civil liberties because it shows a standard where speech can be limited if officials believe the danger is real and near, not just offensive or unpopular.

### [Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/time-place-and-manner-restrictions)

Feiner helps you see why governments can sometimes regulate protests based on where and how they happen. Even when the message is protected, the location and crowd conditions may justify limits. That is the same basic logic behind time, place, and manner rules, which are supposed to manage disruption without targeting the viewpoint.

### [Edwards v. South Carolina](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/edwards-v-south-carolina)

Edwards v. South Carolina is often discussed alongside Feiner because both involve protest and public disorder, but the outcomes differ. Comparing them helps you see how the Court draws the line between peaceful assembly and a situation where officials claim a crowd is about to erupt.

## On the AP Exam

A case ID question may describe a speaker, a crowd, and police arresting someone during a public protest, and you need to recognize Feiner v. New York as a free speech and assembly case about public disorder. On an essay or short-answer prompt, use it to show that First Amendment rights are strong but not unlimited when officials can point to an immediate risk of violence. If you get a comparison question, pair Feiner with cases that expand protest rights or narrow government power, and explain how the Court balances expression against order. A good answer names the setting, the legal issue, and the Court's reasoning instead of just saying "speech was restricted."

## Feiner v. New York vs Brandenburg v. Ohio

These cases are easy to mix up because both deal with speech and possible violence, but they use different legal standards. Feiner is about a speech stopped because police feared immediate disorder in the crowd. Brandenburg is later and protects advocacy unless it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

## Key Takeaways

- Feiner v. New York is a 1951 Supreme Court case about when speech can be limited because a crowd may turn violent.
- The Court upheld Feiner's arrest, saying police could act to prevent a breach of the peace.
- This case shows that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected, but not absolute in every setting.
- The surrounding facts matter a lot: the same words can raise different constitutional issues depending on the crowd and location.
- In civil liberties, Feiner is a reminder that courts often balance expression against public order.

## FAQs

### What is Feiner v. New York in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?

Feiner v. New York is a Supreme Court case from 1951 about free speech and assembly. The Court upheld the arrest of a man speaking on a street corner because officials believed his speech could lead to disorder or violence. It is used to show that First Amendment rights are strong, but not unlimited in volatile situations.

### Why was Feiner arrested?

Feiner was arrested after giving a public speech that criticized local government and supported civil rights. Police thought the crowd might become unruly and that the speech could trigger a breach of the peace. The constitutional issue was whether that threat was serious enough to justify stopping him.

### Is Feiner v. New York about freedom of speech or freedom of assembly?

It involves both, but it is most often taught as a free speech case with an assembly angle. The speech happened in a public crowd, so the Court had to think about expression and public gathering at the same time. That is why it fits the broader First Amendment unit on protest rights.

### How is Feiner v. New York different from Brandenburg v. Ohio?

Feiner is an earlier case that allowed government action when disorder seemed close during a live public speech. Brandenburg came later and gave stronger protection to advocacy, saying the speech must be intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. That shift shows how First Amendment doctrine became more protective over time.

## Related Study Guides

- [2.4 Freedom of assembly](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-2/freedom-assembly/study-guide/LeJSVDRMC73veWIN)

## About This Document

Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`.

- [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns
- [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing
- [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`)
- [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york#resource","name":"Feiner v. New York | Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-07-03T02:21:15.319Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york#term","name":"Feiner v. New York","description":"Feiner v. New York is a 1951 Supreme Court case about free speech and assembly. The Court said the government could stop a speech if it seemed likely to trigger a breach of the peace.","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/feiner-v-new-york","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is Feiner v. New York in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Feiner v. New York is a Supreme Court case from 1951 about free speech and assembly. The Court upheld the arrest of a man speaking on a street corner because officials believed his speech could lead to disorder or violence. It is used to show that First Amendment rights are strong, but not unlimited in volatile situations."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why was Feiner arrested?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Feiner was arrested after giving a public speech that criticized local government and supported civil rights. Police thought the crowd might become unruly and that the speech could trigger a breach of the peace. The constitutional issue was whether that threat was serious enough to justify stopping him."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is Feiner v. New York about freedom of speech or freedom of assembly?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It involves both, but it is most often taught as a free speech case with an assembly angle. The speech happened in a public crowd, so the Court had to think about expression and public gathering at the same time. That is why it fits the broader First Amendment unit on protest rights."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is Feiner v. New York different from Brandenburg v. Ohio?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Feiner is an earlier case that allowed government action when disorder seemed close during a live public speech. Brandenburg came later and gave stronger protection to advocacy, saying the speech must be intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. That shift shows how First Amendment doctrine became more protective over time."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 2","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-2"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Feiner v. New York"}]}]}
```