Facts
- Minnesota enacted a 1925 statute permitting the state to treat any “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” newspaper or periodical as a public nuisance and to enjoin its publication.
- The statute allowed a limited defense: defendants could justify publication only by proving truth published “with good motives and for justifiable ends.”
- J. M. Near published The Saturday Press in Minneapolis and printed articles accusing local officials of corruption and dereliction of duty, including allegations of criminal control over local vice activity.
- The county attorney sought an injunction under the statute to stop further publication of the newspaper.
- A state trial court issued a temporary injunction and later entered a permanent injunction suppressing the paper and treating it as a nuisance.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the injunctions and upheld the statute.
Issues
- Whether a state statute authorizing permanent injunctions against publication of “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” newspapers as nuisances violates freedom of the press under the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether suppressing a newspaper through injunction constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint even if libel can be punished through post-publication civil or criminal remedies.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional as applied because it authorized prior restraint on publication.
- The Court treated the statute’s “operation and effect” as controlling: it empowered suppression of future publication unless the publisher satisfied a judge of truth plus permissible motive.
- The Court held the press guarantee principally bars “previous restraints,” while leaving room for post-publication liability for libel.
- The Court acknowledged narrow, exceptional situations where prior restraint might be permissible (e.g., certain national security or incitement contexts) but found no such circumstance present.
Legal Principles
- Freedom of the press is protected from state infringement through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Prior restraints on publication are presumptively unconstitutional; government generally must rely on subsequent punishment (civil damages or criminal sanctions) for unlawful speech.
- A scheme that suppresses an entire periodical through injunction, backed by contempt sanctions for future publication, functions as censorship and is constitutionally distinct from ordinary libel enforcement.
- Conditioning continued publication on a publisher’s ability to prove truth and acceptable motives before publishing is incompatible with constitutional protection for criticism of public officials.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Minnesota’s injunction-based “gag law” because it imposed prior restraint by suppressing a newspaper as a nuisance, reaffirming that the Constitution generally forbids government from stopping publication in advance and instead permits only post-publication remedies for defamation.