District of Columbia Code 22-1115 makes it unlawful, within 500 feet of a foreign embassy, either to display any sign that tends to bring the foreign government into "public odium" or "public disrepute" (display clause), or to congregate and refuse to obey a police dispersal order (congregation clause). Petitioners, who wish to engage in conduct that would violate both clauses, filed suit in Federal District Court against respondent city officials, asserting a facial First Amendment challenge to 22-1115. The court granted respondents motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that both clauses were constitutional.

Held:

The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

255 U.S. App. D.C. 19, 798 F.2d 1450, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

JUSTICE OCONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B, III, IV, and V, concluding that:

1. Section 22-1115s display clause is facially violative of the First Amendment, since it is a content-based restriction on political speech in a public forum, which is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Assuming, without deciding, that protecting the dignity of foreign diplomats by shielding them from criticism of their governments is a "compelling" interest for First Amendment purposes, the ready availability of a significantly less restrictive alternative - 18 U.S.C. 112, which prohibits intimidating, coercing, or harassing foreign officials or obstructing them in the performance of their duties - amply demonstrates that the display clause is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to withstand exacting scrutiny. Respondents defense of the clause is further undercut by 1302 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act of 1986, in which Congress requested that the District of Columbia review and revise 22-1115 in the interest of protecting First Amendment rights, and the District responded by repealing the section, contingent on the prior extension of 112 to the District. This Court may rely on the judgment of Congress, the body primarily responsible for implementing international law obligations, that 112 adequately satisfies the Governments interest in protecting [485 U.S. 312, 313] diplomatic personnel and that, accordingly, 22-1115s display clause is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 321-329.

2. Section 22-1115s congregation clause, as construed by the Court of Appeals, is not facially violative of the First Amendment. The clause is not overbroad, even though its actual language is problematic both because it applies to any congregation for any reason within 500 feet of an embassy and because it appears to place no limits on police dispersal authority. These difficulties are alleviated by the Court of Appeals narrowing construction that the clause permits dispersal only of congregations that are directed at an embassy and only when the police reasonably believe that the embassys "security or peace" is threatened. Thus, the clause does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, since it merely regulates the place and manner of certain demonstrations, is site specific to areas within 500 feet of embassies, and does not prohibit peaceful congregations. Nor is the clause, as narrowed, impermissibly vague simply because the Court of Appeals has not defined or limited the word "peace." Given the particular context for which the clause is crafted, it is apparent that the prohibited quantum of disturbance is determined by whether normal embassy activities have been or are about to be disrupted. Pp. 329-332.

3. The contention that, since 22-1116 excludes labor picketing from 22-1115s general prohibitions, both of 22-1115s clauses require unequal treatment of nonlabor and labor activities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause is without merit. Section 22-111