Summary Of Supreme Court Case: Minnesota V. US

Case: Near v. Minnesota
1931
U.S. Supreme Court
Parties Jay Near (Plaintiff) State of Minnesota (Defendant)

Facts: A publication, The Saturday Press, published an article alleging that City officials of Minneapolis were complaisant with gangsters who were engaged in illegal activities in the city. A Minnesota law was in effect which allowed the state courts to enjoin a publication which was engaged in a public nuisance. To be a nuisance the publisher had to be printing material that was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. In 1927, a judge issued an order stopping the publication of the Saturday Press. The order also banned the sale of existing copies and of printing new additions. Near appealed the decision of the basis that the
Reasoning: Justice Hughes acknowledges that there are limits to freedom of the press, however, any constitutional restraints can only be imposed in very special and extreme circumstances such as obscenity or the obstruction of the war effort. In this case the Judge ruled that there were no such vital threats at risk. The judge ruled that the most important freedom of the press in the right to operate without prior censorship. Thus, the court ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional as it violated the right of freedom of the press.

Dissent/Concurrences: None

Doctrine: Prior censorship of the press violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. Exceptions exist in limited and extreme circumstances.

Case: New York Times vs. United States
1971
U.S. Supreme
Reasoning: Justice Black (with Douglas Concurring) The bill or rights was enacted to ensure basic freedoms, one of which is the freedom of the press. One of the vital roles of the press is to keep the people informed about what the government is doing. In this case, the government attempted to censor the press under the guise of national security. Justice Black concludes that security of the country can best be preserved by a public well informed by the press.

Concurrences:

Justice Douglas (along with Justice Black): The government can not be allowed to censor the press and hide information it finds embarrassing. It is the duty of the press to keep the public informed so that they can make an informed decision as whether to support or oppose government actions.

Justice Brennan: In the past prior restraint on the press in only allowed in a time of war, and only then to preserve the ability to recruit an army, and to protect the movement and location of troops. Nothing in this case qualifies for the allowed