## Facts

- Ohio enacted a 1913 statute creating a Board of Censors under the Industrial Commission to review and approve motion picture films before exhibition in the state.
- The statute required submission of films for approval, imposed licensing fees, and permitted enforcement actions against exhibitors of unapproved films.
- Mutual Film Corporation distributed motion picture films, many produced outside Ohio and abroad, for rental or sale to Ohio exhibitors.
- Mutual sued state officials in federal district court seeking an interlocutory injunction to stop enforcement, claiming constitutional violations.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief, and Mutual appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may require prior administrative approval of motion picture films for exhibition without violating constitutional protections for speech or publication.
2. Whether the statute denied due process by vesting censorship authority in an administrative board rather than requiring a prior judicial determination.
3. Whether the statute unconstitutionally delegated legislative power by granting the board overly broad discretion to approve or reject films.
4. Whether applying the approval and licensing scheme to films shipped from outside the state impermissibly burdened interstate commerce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the order denying an interlocutory injunction and upheld the statute.
- The Court held that motion picture exhibition was a business conducted for profit, not part of the “press” or “organs of public opinion” for purposes of state constitutional speech/publication guarantees.
- The Court treated film censorship as within the state’s police power to regulate public amusements in the interest of morals, safety, and welfare.
- The Court rejected the interstate commerce challenge, concluding the statute regulated films intended for in-state exhibition and did not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
- The Court rejected the delegation and due process challenges, viewing the law as setting policy while permitting administrators to apply it to particular films.

## Legal Principles

- A state may subject motion picture films intended for exhibition within the state to prior review and approval as a police-power regulation of public amusements.
- Motion picture exhibition, as characterized by the Court, is a profit-driven spectacle and not treated as “press” or an “organ of public opinion” for constitutional speech/publication protection.
- A state regulation applied to goods shipped into the state for local use may be upheld where the goods have come to rest for local distribution and use and the regulation is otherwise valid; the “original package” concept does not prevent such regulation in these circumstances.
- Legislatures may declare general regulatory policy and allow administrative bodies to ascertain facts and apply that policy; broad censorship standards were accepted as administrable in this setting.
- Due process is not necessarily denied by requiring administrative approval as a condition of exhibition under a general regulatory scheme, with judicial review available through ordinary legal processes.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Ohio’s film-censorship system as a valid police-power regulation, concluding that motion pictures were regulable commercial amusements rather than constitutionally protected “press,” and that the approval and licensing requirements did not violate due process, constitute unlawful delegation, or impermissibly burden interstate commerce.


Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Indus. Comm'n, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)