Near v. Minnesota

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment . This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence . The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious " or "scandalous " newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment ). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

It was later a key precedent in _New York Times Co. v. United States _ (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the _Pentagon Papers _.

Contents

• 1 Background of the case

  • 1.1 First trial court proceeding

  • 1.2 First Minnesota Supreme Court decision

  • 1.3 The trial court's decision after remand

  • 1.4 Second Minnesota Supreme Court decision

• 2 The U.S. Supreme Court's decision

• 3 Subsequent developments

• 4 Basic case law resulting from this case

• 5 See also

• 6 References

• 7 Further reading

• 8 External links

Background of the case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near_v._Minnesota&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background of the case")

The October 15, 1927 edition of The Saturday Press

In 1927, Jay M. Near, who has been described as "anti-Catholic , anti-Semitic , anti-black , and anti-labor " began publishing The Saturday Press in Minneapolis with Howard A. Guilford, a former mayoral candidate who had been convicted of criminal libel .

The paper claimed that Jewish-American organized crime was "practically ruling" the city along with the police chief , Frank W. Brunskill, whom Near accused of corruption . Among the paper's other targets were mayor George E. Leach , Hennepin County attorney and future three-term governor Floyd B. Olson , and the members of the grand jury of Hennepin County, who, the paper claimed, were either incompetent or willfully failing to investigate and prosecute known criminal activity.

Shortly after the first issue was distributed, Guilford was shot and hospitalized, where a further attempt on his life was made. At least one of the stories printed in The Saturday Press led to a successful prosecution of a gangster called Big Mose Barnett who had tried to extort protection money from a local dry cleaner by destroying his customers' clothing.

First trial court proceeding

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near_v._Minnesota&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: First trial court proceeding")

Olson filed a complaint against Near and Guilford under the Public Nuisance Law of 1925. Also known as the "Minnesota Gag Law", it provided permanent injunctions against those who created a "public nuisance ," by publishing, selling, or distributing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper." Olson claimed that the allegations raised against him and the other named public officials in all nine issues published between September 24, 1927, and November 19, 1927, as well as the paper's overall antisemitic tone, constituted a violation of this law. On November 22, 1927, Judge Matthias Baldwing of the Hennepin County District Court issued a temporary injunction that barred the defendants from editing, publishing, or circulating The Saturday Press or any other publication containing similar material. This injunction was granted without notice to either defendant on an _ex parte _ hearing between Olson and the judge, and was to extend until the hearing on the judge's order for the defendants to show cause as to why they should not be permanently enjoined from publishing their paper. The hearing was held December 9, and future Minneapolis mayor Thomas E. Latimer argued that the defendants' activities were protected by the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions and demurred to the complaint.

Judge Baldwin denied the demurrer and was affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court on appeal.

First Minnesota Supreme Court decision

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near_v._Minnesota&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: First Minnesota Supreme Court decision")

The State Supreme Court wrote that a scandalous publication "annoys, injures and endangers the comfort and repose of a considerable number of persons," and so constituted a nuisance just as surely as "places where intoxicating liquor is illegally sold ," "houses of prostitution ," "dogs ," "malicious fences " "itinerant carnivals ," "lotteries ," and "noxious weeds ." The court considered that a newspaper may also endanger safety, because "scandalous material" tended to disturb the peace and provoke assaults. The court cited previous Minnesota decisions that upheld the right of the state to enjoin the publication of "details of execution of criminals" and the teaching of "things injurious to society." Restricting the publication of a newspaper based on its harmful content accordingly fell within the legitimate power of "the people speaking through their representatives" to preserve "public morals" and the "public welfare." The court stated that it had to give heavy deference to such decisions, because "it is the prerogative of the legislature to determine not only what the public interests require but also the measures necessary to protect such interests."

Regarding Near and Guilford's defense of freedom of the press under article 1, section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution , the State Supreme Court did not believe that the right was intended to protect the publishing of "scandalous material", but that it only provided "a shield for the honest, careful and conscientious press," not the "defamer and the scandalmonger." Instead, "he who uses the press is responsible for its abuse." The court also ruled that the state constitution's due process clause did not extend any additional protection.

The trial court's decision after remand

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near_v._Minnesota&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: The trial court's decision after remand")

The case then returned to the Hennepin County District Court, and Near and Guilford renewed their objection to the constitutionality of the Public Nuisance Law. Judge Baldwin again overruled their objection. Only the verified complaint that Olson had filed and the news

…