Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 5/24/1965

Lamont v. Postmaster General

Citations

  • 381 U.S. 301
  • 85 S. Ct. 1493
  • 14 L. Ed. 2d 398
  • 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2286

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1965 United States Supreme Court case

Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965), is a landmark First Amendment Supreme Court case, in which the ruling of the Supreme Court struck down § 305(a) of the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, a federal statute requiring the Postmaster General to detain and deliver only upon the addressee's request unsealed foreign mailings of "communist political propaganda."[1]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

39 U.S.C. 4008 (1964) required the U.S. Postmaster General to detain and not deliver "communist political propaganda," unless a recipient affirmatively indicated their consent to receive such materials through the mail. Dr. Corliss Lamont had a copy of the _Peking Review _ detained and declined to respond to the government's inquiry as to whether he wished to receive the delivery. Lamont subsequently filed suit alleging that Section 4008 violated his 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights.

Opinion of the court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the court")
]

The Court 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.[1]

The Court was unanimous in the judgment (8–0, with Justice White recused). Justice Brennan wrote a concurring opinion (which Justice Goldberg joined) and Justice Harlan also wrote a concurring opinion.

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. 1 2 Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

Further reading

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Further reading")
]

  • Sigler, Jay A. (1965). "Freedom of the Mails: A Developing Right". Georgetown Law Journal. 54: 30.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_v._Postmaster_General&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law

**First Amendment to the United States Constitution **

Unprotected speech

Strict scrutiny

Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines

Symbolic speech

versus conduct

Content-based
restrictions

Content-neutral
restrictions

Compelled speech

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that federal statute requiring Postmaster to halt delivery of communist propaganda unless affirmatively requested by addressee violated First Amendment
  • holding that requiring recipient to request in writing that \communist political propaganda\ be delivered to him was an \unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights.\
  • holding that requiring recipient to request in writing that “communist political propaganda” be delivered to him was an “unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”
  • holding that federal statute requiring Postmaster to halt delivery of communist propaganda unless affirmatively requested by addressee violated First Amendment
  • holding that the government could not burden someone’s right to receive political literature through the mail
  • holding that the government acted unconstitutionally when it imposed an “affirmative obligation” on plaintiffs to request access to communist literature, which would have a “deterrent effect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg, Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

309 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Lamont v. Postmaster General

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.