Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Antonin Scalia began by acknowledging that the behavior from R.A.V. and the other teenagers was reprehensible, but noted that Minnesota’s ordinance was not the constitutionally permissible way to prosecute them. Scalia held that the First Amendment provides staunch protections of the right to free speech, meaning the government cannot restrict speech just because it is unpopular or offensive. In some instances, however, speech may be restricted if it furthers a legitimate government interest. Scalia explains that content-based restrictions, which regulate areas such as obscenity, defamation, or other areas “of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Essentially, Scalia is arguing that the government may restrict speech due to its content, but only if it necessary to serve an interest substantial enough to outweigh the burden placed on free speech.

While certain areas of speech may be restricted for their content, viewpoint-discrimination is unequivocally impermissible. Scalia explained that “displays containing some words odious racial epithets, for example—would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But ‘fighting words’ that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender—aspersions upon a person's mother, for example—would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color; etc., tolerance and equality, but could not be used by those speakers' opponents.” In effect, Scalia found that the ordinance effectively worked as a means of viewpoint discrimination and limited speech on an unfair basis, writing that “St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.”

Scalia put forth that in this case, the question is whether or not the ordinance is reasonable necessary to achieve the City of St. Paul’s interest in reducing discrimination. He determined that “the only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.” Scalia ultimately concluded that the ordinance was unconstitutional and that the City of St. Paul had “sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.”