What happened in the Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota (1931) was a landmark decision that established a strong legal precedent against government censorship, specifically known as prior restraint, and affirmed that the First Amendment applies to state governments.
The Landmark Case of Near v. Minnesota
The 1931 Supreme Court case, Near v. Minnesota, officially cited as 283 U.S. 697 (1931), stands as a cornerstone for press freedom in the United States. This decision addressed a Minnesota state law that allowed for the suppression of "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" newspapers and periodicals.
Background of the Case
The case originated when J.M. Near and his associate, Howard Guilford, published The Saturday Press in Minneapolis, a weekly newspaper that consistently attacked local officials, accusing them of being involved with gangsters and bootleggers. The State of Minnesota sought an injunction under the public nuisance law to prevent Near from publishing future issues of his paper, arguing that it was "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory." The state court granted the injunction, effectively shutting down The Saturday Press.
The Supreme Court's Pivotal Ruling
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the Minnesota court's ruling. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, asserted two fundamental principles:
- The Doctrine Opposing Prior Restraint: The Court established a strong presumption against prior restraint, meaning that the government generally cannot forbid publication of information or expression before it occurs. This is in contrast to punishing speech after it has been published (subsequent punishment). The Court held that Minnesota's statute allowing for the permanent injunction against the newspaper amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication. While acknowledging that there might be extremely narrow exceptions to this rule (such as incitement to violence, obscenity, or hindering the war effort during wartime), the general principle is that censorship before publication is an unacceptable infringement on free press.
- Incorporation of the First Amendment: The decision also reaffirmed the emerging view that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the First Amendment to the states. This meant that the protections for freedom of speech and the press, originally applying only to the federal government, now also applied to state governments and their actions. This was a crucial step in ensuring that individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights were enforceable against state governments.
Key Principles Established by Near v. Minnesota
The ruling in Near v. Minnesota solidified the commitment to a free press by:
- Elevating the prohibition against prior restraint to a foundational principle of First Amendment jurisprudence.
- Strengthening the application of the Bill of Rights to state actions through the incorporation doctrine, ensuring a more uniform standard of free speech protection across the nation.
| Aspect of Ruling | Description | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Prior Restraint | Government censorship or prohibition of expression before publication is generally unconstitutional. | Safeguards press freedom by preventing authorities from silencing criticism or controversial views upfront. |
| First Amendment Incorporation | The protections of the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, etc.) apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. | Ensures that state laws and actions cannot infringe upon these fundamental rights, establishing national standards for free expression. |
This case remains a vital reference point in any discussion concerning freedom of the press and the limits of government power to control information. It set the stage for future landmark decisions upholding the press's right to publish without undue government interference.
