Lovell v. City of Griffin - Significance, A Substantial Federal Question, Ordinance Is Unconstitutional Prior Restraint, `press' Includes Pamphlets

petitioner ralph decision march

Petitioner

Alma Lovell

Respondent

City of Griffin, Georgia

Petitioner's Claim

A city ordinance prohibiting distribution of any kind of literature within the city limits without permission of the city manager violates the First and Fourteenth. Amendments.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

O. R. Moyle

Chief Lawyers for Respondent

Hughes Spalding and Sumter M. Kelley

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, Louis D. Brandeis, Pierce Butler, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), James Clark McReynolds, Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone

Justices Dissenting

None (Benjamin N. Cardozo did not participate)

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

28 March 1938

Decision

The city ordinance was invalidated on its face under the First Amendment, and the defendant's conviction was reversed.

Lovell v. City of Griffin - Significance

This decision made it clear that municipalities could not enact ordinances prohibiting the distribution of literature on public streets at all times, at all places, and under all circumstances without the city's permission. Such an ordinance was an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon First Amendment freedoms. The decision also made clear that a facially unconstitutional ordinance c…

Lovell v. City of Griffin - Ordinance Is Unconstitutional Prior Restraint

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Hughes, the Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and reversed Lovell's conviction. By ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional "on its face," the Court limited its analysis to the language used in the ordinance, i.e., the "face" of the ordinance, and did not consider how the ordinance was applied. The Court ruled that…

Lovell v. City of Griffin - Impact

This decision was the first in a long line of Supreme Court cases that struck down city ordinances requiring prior permission of an official in order to distribute literature within the limits of that city. The following year, in Schneider v. State (1939), the Supreme Court invalidated three of four ordinances from New Jersey, California, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts, each forbidding distribution …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.