In Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), an Alabama court enjoined the petitioners from participating in public demonstrations and civil rights marches on the streets, without a permit. The permit had been previously denied, and no further request was made for a permit after the injunction was issued. Nor did the petitioners move to challenge or dissolve the injunction. Instead, the petitioners disobeyed the injunction and were later found guilty of contempt. In affirming the convictions, the lower courts refused to consider the petitioners' constitutional challenges to the injunction or the underlying ordinance on which it was based. Id. at 308-313. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it said, id. at 315: "In the present case . . . we are asked to hold that this rule of law, upon which the Alabama courts relied, was constitutionally impermissible. We are asked to say that the Constitution compelled Alabama to allow the petitioners to violate this injunction, to organize and engage in these mass street parades and demonstrations, without any previous effort on their part to have the injunction dissolved or modified, or any attempt to secure a parade permit in accordance with its terms. . . . We cannot accept the petitioners' contentions in the circumstances of this case." Notably, the Supreme Court acknowledged "substantial constitutional issues" concerning the ordinance. Id. at 316. But, it noted, id. at 316-17, that the petitioners "did not even attempt to apply to the Alabama courts for an authoritative construction of the ordinance. Had they done so, those courts might have given the licensing authority granted in the ordinance a narrow and precise scope . . . ." Similarly, it discerned legitimate issues concerning "the breadth and vagueness of the injunction. . . ." Id. at 317. Nevertheless, the Court said, id.: "But the way to raise that question was to apply to the Alabama courts to have the injunction modified or dissolved. The injunction in all events clearly prohibited mass parading without a permit, and the evidence shows that the petitioners fully understood that prohibition when they violated it." The Supreme Court squarely rejected the petitioners' claim that they were "free to disobey the injunction" because of its constitutional defects. Id.