Near v. Minnesota

The Story: 

Jay Near and Howard Guilford, two writers from a Minneapolis newspaper, accused government officials of working with gangsters. Their brash claims angered Minnesota officials, who went to court to seek an injunction against Near’s company, The Saturday Press. They argued that Near had violated the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law, which stated that, “a malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical, is guilty of a nuisance…” The policy functioned as a gag law, where newspapers could be silenced at the word of a single judge, not even a jury. Because of the malicious and defamatory content of the press release, Minneapolis officials used the law to silence Near and Guilford; they were prevented from publishing further. Near would later sue. 

The Breakdown: 

Near’s lawyer argued that the Public Nuisance Law violated the First Amendment, because it limited freedom of the press; he also argued that the law violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee to Due Process (made applicable to states via the Fourteenth Amendment). Near v. Minnesota was the Supreme Court’s first major case involving prior restraint of the press. Minnesota argued that publishing scandalous, false material was a public nuisance; therefore, the state had a right to prevent future publications. To them, the publication was a business, so they argued that suppressing the business of regularly published defamatory articles was not a previous restraint. Minnesota also argued that they were not enacting prior restraint on future articles. Rather, by getting a court injunction, they were simply using a legal remedy only after multiple defamatory articles were published. Finally, they also claimed that the liberty of the press was not an absolute right, and thus, the State may suppress defamatory newspapers. 

The Majority Opinion: 

In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court, finding that prior restraints on publications are unconstitutional. Hughes writes, “ The fact that, for approximately one hundred and fifty years, there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right.” Thus, Minnesota’s law goes against historical precedent. Hughes also references the backlash from the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stopped publications during John Adams’s presidency, to point out the disastrous effect upholding the Minnesota law may cause. He explains that libel laws, which allow an injured party to sue for damages regarding written works that harm reputation, exist to provide a constitutional alternative to prior restraint. He argues that because of an increase in complexity in state governments, a lack of restraint on the press is necessary to uphold democracy. He outlines the flaw in Minnesota’s argument of calling the publication a business by explaining, “Characterizing the publication as a business, and the business as a nuisance, does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. Similarly, it does not matter that the newspaper or periodical is found to be "largely" or "chiefly" devoted to the publication of such derelictions. If the publisher has a right, without previous restraint, to publish them, his right cannot be deemed to be dependent upon his publishing something else, more or less, with the matter to which objection is made.” He concludes that while exposing corrupt officials is disruptive to society, giving the government the power to censor or prevent publication is more dangerous. 

The Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Butler wrote the dissenting opinion for the court. Firstly, Butler explains that the content of the articles was malicious and disturbing to the public. From this evidence, Butler develops his main argument, stating, “ In Minnesota, no agency can hush the sincere and honest voice of the press; but our constitution was never intended to protect malice, scandal and defamation when untrue or published with bad motives or without justifiable ends. . . . It was never the intention of the constitution to afford protection to a publication devoted to scandal and defamation.” Butler also outlines how the result of Near may affect America; by giving more power to the press, they may be able to abuse the passions of the people through lies and manipulation. Butler’s dissent reflects a limited view of the First Amendment protection, arguing that speech lacking social value falls outside constitutional protection. 

The Aftermath: 

Because of Near, the press is free to write articles without fearing government interference or court injunctions before publishing.  However, legal action is still allowed to happen after publication. The Court emphasized that limited exceptions, such as national security, obscenity, or incitement to violence, could be a justifiable reason for prior restraint. Through this case, the Court incorporated First Amendment protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Notably, Near himself was not a sympathetic figure. The Saturday Press had allegations of antisemitism and racially charged rhetoric alongside its corruption allegations. The Supreme Court’s willingness to protect his paper’s rights to publish, despite its content, underscored the idea that protecting press freedom cannot depend on whether the speech itself was admirable. Near would also set the stage for future press victories in court, like New York Times Co v. Sullivan. To conclude, without Near, government overreach may have suppressed many written works as time went on. Near continues to shape modern press protections, as it influences how courts evaluate publications, leaks, and investigative journalism. 

Bibliography:

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (Butler, J., dissenting).

Minnesota Historical Society. “Near v. Minnesota.” MNopedia.

University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. “Near v. Minnesota” Famous Trials.

Teaching American History. “Near v. Minnesota.” 

Full Text Links:

Near v. Minnesota, Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/697/

Minnesota Historical Society, MNopedia: https://www.mnhs.org/mnopedia/search/index/event/near-v-minnesota

UMKC Famous Trials: https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/near.html

Teaching American History: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/near-v-minnesota/