Appellant
Corliss Lamont
Appellee
John F. Fixa, U.S. Postmaster General
Appellant's Claim
That a federal statute requiring the postmaster to destroy any mail from foreign countries determined to be communist propaganda unless the addressee returns a reply card indicating his desire to receive the mail violated his freespeech rights under the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Leonard B. Boudin
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Archibald Cox, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, PotterStewart, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
None (Byron R. White did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 May 1965
Decision
That the statute requiring the addressee to return a reply card in order to receive mail designated as communist propaganda infringed on the addressee's unfettered right to free speech under the First Amendment.
Significance
The Court's decision reiterated the Court's previous decisions that the government has no power to place even minor restrictions on the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It also reiterated the central idea behind the First Amendment, that the freedom to speak one's mind protects the right to speak on topics which are politically unpopular.
Following the end of World War II, and fueled in large part by the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, a great fear arose in the United States of people associated with the Communist party or generally holdingcommunist beliefs. This era was marked by blacklisting of members of the media and entertainment industries with ties to communists, Congressional investigation of communists and non-communists alike, and a general distrust of anyone sympathizing with communists or communist beliefs. This period was also marked by government attempts in the 1950s and 1960s to monitor U.S. citizens suspected of being communists.
Part of this paranoia was reflected in the Postal Service Act of 1962. Section 305 of this act required the postal service to detain any unsealed mail, such as magazines and pamphlets but not including sealed letters, designated as"communist political propaganda" which was sent into the United States froma foreign country. The post office was then required to notify the addresseethat the mail had been received and would be delivered only at the addressee's request.
In 1963, a copy of a pamphlet called "Peking Review #12" was sent to Dr. Corliss Lamont, who published and distributed pamphlets in the United States. Pursuant to the Postal Service Act, the post office detained the pamphlet and sent Lamont a card notifying him that the material had been detained. Instead of sending to the post office a reply card indicating that he wished to receive the material, Lamont filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the statute infringed on his rightto free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel of the district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Lamont's claim was moot because the post office construed his filing of the lawsuit as an indication that he wished to receive the pamphlet and delivered it to him. Meanwhile, Leif Helberg instituted a similar challenge to the law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That court, however, found that the statute was unconstitutional.
Court Sets Broad Free Speech Protections
The government appealed the decision in the California case, and Lamont appealed the district court's decision in the New York case, to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided the cases together. The Supreme Court found that the statute was an unconstitutional restriction on the right to free speech.
The Court first rejected the government's argument that, because the government has no duty to provide for a postal service, the law did not involve any official action restricting the free speech rights of citizens wishing to receive material designated as communist propaganda. Quoting from Justice OliverWendell Holmes's dissenting opinion in the 1921 case of United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, the Court stated that "[t]he United States may give up the post-office when it sees fit, but while it carries it on the use of mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues." Thus, the Court concluded, Congress by passing a statute was attempting to abridge the free speech rights of citizens to receive this material.
The Court also rejected the government's argument that the statute did not infringe on the right to free speech. The government argued that people could still receive material designated as communist propaganda by sending back thereply card directing the post office to deliver the material. Thus, the government argued, the statute involved only inconvenience, and not an abridgmentof the right to free speech. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning thatthe statute requires an affirmative act on the part of the addressee in order to receive the prohibited materials. The Court also reasoned that people would be deterred from sending back the reply card, for fear that the government or others would label them communists. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brennan expressed the Court's view thusly: "[I]nhibition as well as prohibition against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government . . . [W]e cannot sustain an intrusion on First Amendment rightson the ground that the intrusion is only a minor one." Thus, the Court foundthat the statute was unconstitutional.
Impact
The Court's decision, coming at the height of the country's fear of communismduring the Cold War, reaffirmed the central tenet of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech: That freedom of speech protects speech on unpopular topics and advocacy of unpopular political ideas. Thus, the Court signaled that government may not impose any burdens on the right of the people tospeak their minds concerning political and social issues. Since the Court's decision in Lamont, the Court has consistently held to this interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of speech.
Related Cases
Corliss Lamont
Appellee
John F. Fixa, U.S. Postmaster General
Appellant's Claim
That a federal statute requiring the postmaster to destroy any mail from foreign countries determined to be communist propaganda unless the addressee returns a reply card indicating his desire to receive the mail violated his freespeech rights under the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Leonard B. Boudin
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Archibald Cox, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, PotterStewart, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
None (Byron R. White did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 May 1965
Decision
That the statute requiring the addressee to return a reply card in order to receive mail designated as communist propaganda infringed on the addressee's unfettered right to free speech under the First Amendment.
Significance
The Court's decision reiterated the Court's previous decisions that the government has no power to place even minor restrictions on the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It also reiterated the central idea behind the First Amendment, that the freedom to speak one's mind protects the right to speak on topics which are politically unpopular.
Following the end of World War II, and fueled in large part by the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, a great fear arose in the United States of people associated with the Communist party or generally holdingcommunist beliefs. This era was marked by blacklisting of members of the media and entertainment industries with ties to communists, Congressional investigation of communists and non-communists alike, and a general distrust of anyone sympathizing with communists or communist beliefs. This period was also marked by government attempts in the 1950s and 1960s to monitor U.S. citizens suspected of being communists.
Part of this paranoia was reflected in the Postal Service Act of 1962. Section 305 of this act required the postal service to detain any unsealed mail, such as magazines and pamphlets but not including sealed letters, designated as"communist political propaganda" which was sent into the United States froma foreign country. The post office was then required to notify the addresseethat the mail had been received and would be delivered only at the addressee's request.
In 1963, a copy of a pamphlet called "Peking Review #12" was sent to Dr. Corliss Lamont, who published and distributed pamphlets in the United States. Pursuant to the Postal Service Act, the post office detained the pamphlet and sent Lamont a card notifying him that the material had been detained. Instead of sending to the post office a reply card indicating that he wished to receive the material, Lamont filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the statute infringed on his rightto free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel of the district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Lamont's claim was moot because the post office construed his filing of the lawsuit as an indication that he wished to receive the pamphlet and delivered it to him. Meanwhile, Leif Helberg instituted a similar challenge to the law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That court, however, found that the statute was unconstitutional.
Court Sets Broad Free Speech Protections
The government appealed the decision in the California case, and Lamont appealed the district court's decision in the New York case, to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided the cases together. The Supreme Court found that the statute was an unconstitutional restriction on the right to free speech.
The Court first rejected the government's argument that, because the government has no duty to provide for a postal service, the law did not involve any official action restricting the free speech rights of citizens wishing to receive material designated as communist propaganda. Quoting from Justice OliverWendell Holmes's dissenting opinion in the 1921 case of United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, the Court stated that "[t]he United States may give up the post-office when it sees fit, but while it carries it on the use of mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues." Thus, the Court concluded, Congress by passing a statute was attempting to abridge the free speech rights of citizens to receive this material.
The Court also rejected the government's argument that the statute did not infringe on the right to free speech. The government argued that people could still receive material designated as communist propaganda by sending back thereply card directing the post office to deliver the material. Thus, the government argued, the statute involved only inconvenience, and not an abridgmentof the right to free speech. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning thatthe statute requires an affirmative act on the part of the addressee in order to receive the prohibited materials. The Court also reasoned that people would be deterred from sending back the reply card, for fear that the government or others would label them communists. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brennan expressed the Court's view thusly: "[I]nhibition as well as prohibition against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government . . . [W]e cannot sustain an intrusion on First Amendment rightson the ground that the intrusion is only a minor one." Thus, the Court foundthat the statute was unconstitutional.
Impact
The Court's decision, coming at the height of the country's fear of communismduring the Cold War, reaffirmed the central tenet of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech: That freedom of speech protects speech on unpopular topics and advocacy of unpopular political ideas. Thus, the Court signaled that government may not impose any burdens on the right of the people tospeak their minds concerning political and social issues. Since the Court's decision in Lamont, the Court has consistently held to this interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of speech.
Related Cases
- United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921).
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons v. Alabamaex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
- United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114 (1981).
- Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987).
- Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FederalCommunications Commission, 116 S. Ct. 2374 (1996).
User Comments Add a comment…