John Marshall Harlan II,
Gregory v. City of Chicago — Concurrence
“ Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in the result.Two factors in this case run afoul of well-established constitutional principles, and clearly call for reversal. These are the ambulatory sweep of the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance, see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) , and Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 186, 82 S.Ct. 248, 263, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961) (Harlan, J. concurring in judgment) , and the possibility that as the case went to the jury the convictions may have rested on a constitutionally impermissible ground. See Stromberg v. ”
