Near v. Minnesota

If you knew someone was going to post something inflammatory on social media that could be perceived as scandalous, do you have the right to stop that person from posting? Does the government? Or does the right to freedom of expression and press only begin after publication? Jay Near, a publisher in Minnesota, brought these questions before the Supreme Court in 1931 in Near v. Minnesota. The aftermath forever changed how the U.S. government interpreted freedom of the press and expression. Continue reading to learn what changed!

Near v Minnesota: 1931

Before 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court had no ruling on freedom of the press or expression cases in which they were asked about restraints on the media before publication. This changed in 1931 when a city official charged Jay Near with violating state law.

Fig. 1 - A photograph of the front page of The Saturday Press from 1927, the publication is the focus of the Near v. Minnesota case.

Near v Minnesota: Summary

Chapter 285 of the Sessions Laws of Minnesota provides for reducing periodicals or magazines that are determined to be scandalous ordefamatory, as they are seen as a public nuisance. Under this statute, the county attorney brought a sanction to enjoin the publication of printed material in theSaturday Press, published by Jay Near. A series of articles in theSaturday Presspointed out deficiencies of the police and public figures. One article highlighted by the suit stated that a Jewish gangster ran the city, and no one did anything about it.

A city official brought an action against Jay Near. The district court did not decide the whole case and instead sent it to the state supreme court. The Court found that the Minnesota statute violated the state constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Near v Minnesota: Amendments

的issue before the Court involved two amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The First and Fourteenth amendments. Jay Near, the publisher of theSaturday Press, argued that the Minnesota law violated hisFirst Amendment rights offreedom of the pressthrough thedue process clause of theFourteenth Amendment.

的state argued that the law dealt with the business of publishing defamatory statements, not the actual publication of a periodical itself. The state also argued that the law was enacted to prevent the spread of scandal, which might lead to crime.

Fourteenth Amendment Issues

As with most Supreme Court cases involving state law violating the U.S. Constitution, there is usually an entanglement with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it is the clause used by the Court to implement theconstitutionalityof state law.

First Amendment Issues

Though the suit utilizes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it uses that clause to justify whether or not the state of Minnesota has the authority to prevent publication, which Jay Near argued violates the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press clause.

Near v Minnesota: Ruling

In a close, 5-4 decision, the Court held that the statute was an infringement of the freedom of the press of the First Amendment guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

的Opinion

Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion for the Court, saying that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from state invasion guards the freedom of the press and speech. The effect of the statute in question is that public authorities may bring the owner before a judge on the charge of publishing scandalous and defamatory materials. Chief Justice Hughes argued that this censorship is inconsistent withordered liberty.

Fig. 2 - Chief Justice Charles Hughes.

For almost 150 years before this case, no one had challenged the imposition ofprior restraintor previous restraints, meaning the prohibiting of the publication of an expression before its release to the public, on publications relating to the unsatisfactory nature of how the public perceived officials carrying out their jobs. Chief Justice Hughes argued that such restraint would clearly violate the Constitution.

的Dissent

Justice Butler wrote the dissenting opinion for the Court. In his dissent, he argued that the Court's decision takes from the states the power to issue injunctions on malicious and defamatory periodicals that amount to a public nuisance. He claimed the decision gives freedom of the press a meaning and scope not ever recognized and interprets liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment to put an unprecedented federal restriction upon the states.

Fig. 3 - Justice Pierce Butler.

Near v. Minnesota: Significance

This was the first decision of the Court finding state legislation to violate the First Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision also indicated that prior restraint might be acceptable in times of war.

Near v. Minnesota: Prior Restraint

As mentioned above,prior restraintmeans prohibiting the publication of an expression before its release to the public. The aftermath of theNeardecision is that prior restraint becomes the method, or court test, in dealing with freedom of expression cases. An injunction postpones the publication of the protected materials until after a final determination of its acceptability.Nearincorporated the freedom of the press in the Fourteenth Amendment, making it applicable to state action. Overall,Nearestablished an almost complete prohibition against prior restraint on publication by any agent or level of government.