Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 848, Fixa, Postmaster, San Francisco, et al. v. Heilberg, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
These cases challenge the constitutionality of 305 (a) of the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, which requires the Postmaster General to detain and deliver only upon the addressee's request unsealed foreign mailings of "communist political propaganda." Under procedure effective March 15, 1965, the Post Office sends to the addressee a card which can be checked to have the mailing delivered. The card states that if it is not returned within 20 days, it will be assumed that the addressee does not want that publication or any similar one in the future. When the addressees in these cases received the Post Office notices they sued to enjoin enforcement of the statute. Held: The Act as construed and applied is unconstitutional since it imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment. Pp. 305-307.
229 F. Supp. 913, reversed; 236 F. Supp. 405, affirmed.
Leonard B. Boudin argued the cause for appellant in No. 491. With him on the briefs were Victor Rabinowitz, Norman Dorsen and Henry Winestine.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for appellee in No. 491 and appellants in No. 848. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and Lee B. Anderson.
Marshall W. Krause argued the cause for appellee in No. 848. With him on the brief was Lawrence Speiser.
Nanette Dembitz and Melvin L. Wulf filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in No. 491 and affirmance in No. 848. [381 U.S. 301, 302]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These appeals present the same question: is 305 (a) of the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 840, constitutional as construed and applied? The statute provides in part:
To implement the statute the Post Office maintains 10 or 11 screening points through which is routed all unsealed mail from the designated foreign countries. At these points the nonexempt mail is examined by Customs authorities. When it is determined that a piece of mail is "communist political propaganda," the addressee is mailed a notice identifying the mail being detained and advising that it will be destroyed unless the addressee requests delivery by returning an attached reply card within 20 days.
Prior to March 1, 1965, the reply card contained a space in which the addressee could request delivery of any "similar publication" in the future. A list of the persons thus manifesting a desire to receive "communist political propaganda" was maintained by the Post Office. The Government in its brief informs us that the keeping of this list was terminated, effective March 15, 1965. Thus, under the new practice, a notice is sent and must be returned for each individual piece of mail desired. The only standing instruction which it is now possible to leave with the Post Office is not to deliver any "communist political [381 U.S. 301, 304] propaganda." 2 And the Solicitor General advises us that the Post Office Department "intends to retain its assumption that those who do not return the card want neither the identified publication nor any similar one arriving subsequently."
No. 491 arose out of the Post Office's detention in 1963 of a copy of the Peking Review # 12 addressed to appellant, Dr. Corliss Lamont, who is engaged in the publishing and distributing of pamphlets. Lamont did not respond to the notice of detention which was sent to him but instead instituted this suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute, alleging that it infringed his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. The Post Office thereupon notified Lamont that it considered his institution of the suit to be an expression of his desire to receive "communist political propaganda" and therefore none of his mail would be detained. Lamont amended his complaint to challenge on constitutional grounds the placement of his name on the list of those desiring to receive "communist political propaganda." The majority of the three-judge District Court nonetheless dismissed the complaint as moot, 229 F. Supp. 913, because Lamont would now receive his mail unimpeded. Insofar as the list was concerned, the majority thought that any legally significant harm to Lamont as a result of being listed was merely a speculative possibility, and so on this score the controversy was not yet ripe for adjudication. Lamont appealed from the dismissal, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 926 .
Like Lamont, appellee Heilberg in No. 848, when his mail was detained, refused to return the reply card and [381 U.S. 301, 305] instead filed a complaint in the District Court for an injunction against enforcement of the statute. The Post Office reacted to this complaint in the same manner as it had to Lamont's complaint, but the District Court declined to hold that Heilberg's action was thereby mooted. Instead the District Court reached the merits and unanimously held that the statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 236 F. Supp. 405. The Government appealed and we noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 997 .
There is no longer even a colorable question of mootness in these cases, for the new procedure, as described above, requires the postal authorities to send a separate notice for each item as it is received and the addressee to make a separate request for each item. Under the new system, we are told, there can be no list of persons who have manifested a desire to receive "communist political propaganda" and whose mail will therefore go through relatively unimpeded. The Government concedes that the changed procedure entirely precludes any claim of mootness and leaves for our consideration the sole question of the constitutionality of the statute.
We conclude that the Act as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. As stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407, 437 (dissenting): "The United States may give up the Post Office when it sees fit, but while it carries it on the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues . . . ." 3 [381 U.S. 301, 306]
We struck down in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , a flat license tax on the exercise of First Amendment rights. A registration requirement imposed on a labor union organizer before making a speech met the same fate in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 . A municipal licensing system for those distributing literature was held invalid in Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 . We recently reviewed in Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 , an attempt by a State to impose a burden on the exercise of a right under the Twenty-fourth Amendment. There, a registration was required by all federal electors who did not pay the state poll tax. We stated:
We reverse the judgment in No. 491 and affirm that in No. 848.
[ Footnote 2 ] A Post Office regulation permits a patron to refuse delivery of any piece of mail (39 CFR 44.1 (a)) or to request in writing a withholding from delivery for a period not to exceed two years of specifically described items of certain mail, including "foreign printed matter." Ibid. And see Schwartz, The Mail Must Not Go Through, 11 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 805, 847.
[ Footnote 3 ] "Whatever may have been the voluntary nature of the postal system in the period of its establishment, it is now the main artery through which the business, social, and personal affairs of the people are conducted and upon which depends in a greater degree than upon [381 U.S. 301, 306] any other activity of government the promotion of the general welfare." Pike v. Walker, 73 App. D.C. 289, 291, 121 F.2d 37, 39. And see Gellhorn, Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints, p. 88 et seq. (1956).
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG joins, concurring.
These might be troublesome cases if the addressees predicated their claim for relief upon the First Amendment rights of the senders. To succeed, the addressees [381 U.S. 301, 308] would then have to establish their standing to vindicate the senders' constitutional rights, cf. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 486 , as well as First Amendment protection for political propaganda prepared and printed abroad by or on behalf of a foreign government, cf. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 781 -785. However, those questions are not before us, since the addressees assert First Amendment claims in their own right: they contend that the Government is powerless to interfere with the delivery of the material because the First Amendment "necessarily protects the right to receive it." Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 . Since the decisions today uphold this contention, I join the Court's opinion.
It is true that the First Amendment contains no specific guarantee of access to publications. However, the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. See, e. g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 ; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 ; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 ; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 . I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.
Even if we were to accept the characterization of this statute as a regulation not intended to control the content of speech, but only incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise, see Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 16 -17, we "have consistently held that only a compelling [governmental] interest in the regulation of a subject within [governmental] constitutional power to regulate can justify [381 U.S. 301, 309] limiting First Amendment freedoms." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 . The Government's brief expressly disavows any support for this statute "in large public interests such as would be needed to justify a true restriction upon freedom of expression or inquiry." Rather the Government argues that, since an addressee taking the trouble to return the card can receive the publication named in it, only inconvenience and not an abridgment is involved. But inhibition as well as prohibition against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government. See, e. g., Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 ; Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 ; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 . The registration requirement which was struck down in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 , was not appreciably more burdensome. Moreover, the addressee's failure to return this form results in nondelivery not only of the particular publication but also of all similar publications or material. Thus, although the addressee may be content not to receive the particular publication, and hence does not return the card, the consequence is a denial of access to like publications which he may desire to receive. In any event, we cannot sustain an intrusion on First Amendment rights on the ground that the intrusion is only a minor one. As the Court said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 :
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the judgment of the Court on the grounds set forth in this concurring opinion. [381 U.S. 301, 311]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 381 U.S. 301
Docket No: No. 491
Argued: April 26, 1965
Decided: May 24, 1965
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)