Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) (Postal Service, SCOTUS)
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Facts
Corinne Lamont, a U.S. citizen, received mail from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Under 39 U.S.C. § 4001, the Postmaster General could detain mail from communist organizations unless the addressee requested delivery in writing. Lamont challenged this statutory scheme as violating her First Amendment right to receive information without government interference.
The Issue
• Whether a federal statute authorizing the Postmaster General to detain mail from communist organizations and require affirmative requests for delivery violates the First Amendment. • Whether the statute constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of speech and association.
The Rules
The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, particularly political and social ideas, regardless of their source.
Federal statute authorizing the Postmaster General to detain mail from communist organizations unless the addressee affirmatively requested delivery in writing.
The Application
The statutory scheme unconstitutionally burdened Lamont's right to receive information by requiring her to take affirmative steps, submitting a written request, before the government would deliver communist political materials to her. This requirement created an impermissible chill on the First Amendment right to receive ideas, even though the government did not outright ban the mail, because it conditioned delivery of protected speech on the recipient's prior disclosure of interest. By placing the burden on citizens to affirmatively request delivery of disfavored foreign political materials, rather than allowing mail to flow freely and protecting national security through other means, the statute impermissibly interfered with the receipt of information as a fundamental companion to the freedoms of speech and press.
The Conclusion
**The Court held 8-0 that the statute violated the First Amendment as an unconstitutional prior restraint on the right to receive information.** The decision established that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right to receive communications without government interference. The statute's requirement that citizens affirmatively request delivery of such mail impermissibly burdened this fundamental right.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Court struck down a federal statute allowing the Postmaster General to block mail from communist organizations as an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
Facts
Corinne Lamont, a U.S. citizen, received mail from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Under 39 U.S.C. § 4001, the Postmaster General could detain mail from communist organizations unless the addressee requested delivery in writing. Lamont challenged this statutory scheme as violating her First Amendment right to receive information without government interference.
Issue
Whether a federal statute requiring the Postmaster General to withhold delivery of foreign communist political propaganda unless the addressee affirmatively requests the materials violates the First Amendment's protection of the right to receive information.
Rule
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965), struck down the statute as the first federal law invalidated on First Amendment grounds since the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Court held that requiring affirmative action by recipients of political correspondence as a condition of mail delivery unconstitutionally chilled the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas. A companion right to the freedom of speech and press.
Analysis
The statutory scheme unconstitutionally burdened Lamont's right to receive information by requiring her to take affirmative steps, submitting a written request, before the government would deliver communist political materials to her. This requirement created an impermissible chill on the First Amendment right to receive ideas, even though the government did not outright ban the mail, because it conditioned delivery of protected speech on the recipient's prior disclosure of interest. By placing the burden on citizens to affirmatively request delivery of disfavored foreign political materials, rather than allowing mail to flow freely and protecting national security through other means, the statute impermissibly interfered with the receipt of information as a fundamental companion to the freedoms of speech and press.
Conclusion
**The Court held 8-0 that the statute violated the First Amendment as an unconstitutional prior restraint on the right to receive information.** The decision established that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right to receive communications without government interference. The statute's requirement that citizens affirmatively request delivery of such mail impermissibly burdened this fundamental right.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support