Hannegan v. Esquire
Robert Hannegan, U.S. Postmaster General
That Esquire, Inc. was not entitled to second class postal delivery, as the material published in the magazine was not contributing to the public good or public welfare.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Marvin C. Taylor
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Felix Frankfurter, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Fred Moore Vinson
None (Robert H. Jackson did not participate)
Date of Decision
4 February 1946
Decided for Esquire, Inc., allowing the magazine to retain rights to second class postal service and refusing the Postmaster broad powers of censorship.
- Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877).
- United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921).
- Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1997.
- Konvitz, Milton R., ed. Bill of Rights Reader, 5th ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973.
- Hirabayashi v. United States - Significance, An Atmosphere Of Suspicion, A Waiver Of Rights?, Equal Protection Versus Winning A War
- Gertrude Morris Trial: 1952 - Extraordinary Defense Opening, Defendant Flees Courtroom
- Hannegan v. Esquire - Significance
- Other Free Encyclopedias