Near v.

Minnesota
283 US 697
June 1, 1931
Sec.4 Freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press; prior restraint

FACTS
Minnesota enacted a law in 1925 which provides for the abatement, as a public nuisance,
of a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical. The statute
enjoins perpetually the persons committing or maintaining such nuisance from further committing
or maintaining it.

Under this statute, the County Attorney of Hennepin County bought an action to enjoin the
publication of The Saturday Press, published by herein appellants in the City of Minneapolis. In
substance, the articles published alleged that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling,
bootlegging and racketeering in Minneapolis, and that law enforcing officers and agencies were
not energetically performing their duties. Most of the charges were directed against herein
appellees Chief of Police; he was charged with gross neglect of duty, illicit relations with
gangsters, and with participation in graft. The County Attorney was charged with knowing the
existing conditions and with failure to take adequate measures to remedy them. The City Mayor
was accused of inefficiency and dereliction. Judgment was rendered in the lower court which
abated the publication of The Saturday Press. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE
Whether or not the statute is constitutional.

RULING
NO. The statute is not constitutional; it violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution
(freedom of the press).

The Court held that the statute, in substance, imposes a prior restraint upon the The
Saturday Press, which is in violation of the First Amendment. The fact that the liberty of press
may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less necessary the immunity
of the press from prior restraints when it deals with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment
for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy consistent with constitutional privilege,
and not prior restraint.

Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court
found a constitutionally objectionable form of prior restraint because delving into the details of the
statute reveals that public authorities may bring the owner of publisher of a newspaper before a

Prepared by: William Villegas

1-D
judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter,
against public officers in particular, and unless the owner or publisher is able to satisfy the judge
that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his
newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt.

Prepared by: William Villegas

1-D