SCOTUS Case

Beauharnais v. Illinois

Primary source

Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.

Background

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1952 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Beauharnais v. Illinois **

Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952), was a case that came before the United States Supreme Court in 1952. It upheld an Illinois law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion". It is most known for giving a legal basis to some degree that forms of hate speech that may be deemed to breach US libel law are not protected by the First Amendment .

The petitioner, Joseph Beauharnais, who served as the president of the White Circle League of America, a white supremacist group, had distributed a leaflet "setting forth a petition calling on the Mayor and City Council of Chicago 'to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro.'" His criminal conviction by the trial court and $200 fine was sustained by the Illinois Supreme Court , and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after it rejected a Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge.

In his opinion, Justice Frankfurter argued that the speech conducted by the defendant had breached libel and so was reasoned to be outside the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

In his dissenting opinion , Associate Justice Black quoted Pyrrhus of Epirus by alluding to the term _Pyrrhic victory _: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone'".

Subsequent history

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauharnais_v._Illinois&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Subsequent history")
]

Although Beauharnais has not been overturned, subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan _ (1964), _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul _ (1992), and _Brandenburg v. Ohio _ (1969) have adopted a more speech-protective position.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauharnais_v._Illinois&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ "this is a white man's country" . Herald and Review. May 5, 1950. p. 27. Retrieved November 3, 2023.
↑ Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 250 (U.S. 1952).
↑ Schwartz, Bernard (1996). The Warren Court: A Retrospective. Oxford University Press . p. 78. ISBN 0-19-510439-0 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauharnais_v._Illinois&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) is available from: Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauharnais_v._Illinois&oldid=1351347904 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Beauharnais v. Illinois

Add languages Add topic

Read the full Wikipedia article

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the decision in Beauharnais v Illinois?+

Conclusion. In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter, the Court concluded that Beuharnais' speech amounted to libel and was therefore beyond constitutional protection.

Sourced from Beauharnais v. Illinois - Oyez

What case incorporated the 2nd Amendment?+

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.

Sourced from McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

What was the decision in the Wabash case?+

In the Wabash case, the issue was an Illinois law that prohibited a difference between long-haul and short-haul rates, and the Court ruled that such rate regulations placed a direct burden on the federal commerce power.

Sourced from Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois | Law - EBSCO