Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued January 11, 1946 Decided February 4, 1946 | |
Full case name | Robert E. Hannegan, Postmaster General v. Esquire, Inc. |
Citations | 327 U.S. 146 ( more ) 66 S.Ct. 456; 90 L. Ed. 586; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2808 |
Case history | |
Prior | Dismissed, 55 F. Supp. 1015 (D.D.C.); rev'd, 151 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir.); cert. granted, 326 U.S. 708(1945). |
Holding | |
The Postmaster General is without power to prescribe standards for the literature or the art which a mailable periodical (not obscene) disseminates, or to determine whether the contents of the periodical meet some standard of the public good or welfare. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Douglas, joined by Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Murphy, Rutldge, Burton |
Concurrence | Frankfurter |
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
39 U.S.C. § 221 (1946) (Section 7 of the Classification Act of 1879) |
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146 (1946), was a U.S. Supreme Court case argued between the United States Postal Service and Esquire magazine. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the USPS was without statutory authority to revoke a periodical's second class permit on the basis of objectionable material that was not obscene. [1]
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. was the culmination of a bitter legal battle between Esquire magazine and the USPS that began in 1943. Taking offense to the Varga Girl and other pin-up style imagery, Postmaster General Frank Comerford Walker convened a hearing board in October 1943 to determine whether Esquire contained obscenity. A host of national figures were called in as witnesses to offer their "expertise" on whether the Varga Girl and other Esquire content was obscene, among them H. L. Mencken and Rev. Peter Marshall. The press had a field-day covering the affair and ridiculing the Postmaster General and his department. When the hearing board ruled 2–1 in favor of Esquire, Postmaster General Walker refused to accept their decision, and revoked Esquire's second-class mailing privileges. Esquire then filed suit in federal district court to enjoin the revocation order. Visiting Judge T. Whitfield Davidson ruled in favor of the Post Office in Esquire vs. Walker. Esquire appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals where Judge Thurman Arnold reversed the decision. Postmaster General Frank Walker (who was succeeded by Robert Hannegan in June 1945) appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In 1946 the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in favor of Esquire. [1]
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion for the court:
To uphold the order of revocation would, therefore, grant the Postmaster General a power of censorship. Such a power is so abhorrent to our traditions that a purpose to grant it should not be easily inferred ... To withdraw the second-class rate from this publication today because its contents seemed to one official not good for the public would sanction withdrawal of the second-class rate tomorrow from another periodical whose social or economic views seemed harmful to another official ... Congress has left the Postmaster General with no power to prescribe standards for the literature or the art which a mailable periodical disseminates. [2]
The Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. decision had important social implications for postwar society. The decision sanctioned the pin-up as a socially acceptable cultural symbol, and helped spur an unprecedented increase in pornographic magazines during the 1950s.
Esquire is an American men's magazine. Currently published in the United States by Hearst, it also has more than 20 international editions.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship that establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.
Joaquin Alberto Vargas y Chávez was a Peruvian-American painter of pin-up girls. He is often considered one of the most famous of the pin-up artists, and as one of the pioneers of airbrush art. Numerous Vargas paintings have sold and continue to sell for tens of thousands around the world.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
Robert Emmet Hannegan was an American politician who served as Commissioner of Internal Revenue from October 1943 to January 1944. He also served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1944 to 1947 and United States Postmaster General from 1945 to 1947. At the conclusion of his political career in 1947, Hannegan and his business partner Fred Saigh purchased the St. Louis Cardinals, a Major League Baseball team. But Hannegan, by then ill with heart disease, sold his share of the team ownership to Saigh a few months before his death.
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States federal government was empowered by Condemnation Act of August 1, 1888; the Public Buildings Act of 1926; and the United States Constitution to exercise its right of eminent domain over land containing buildings owned by a state or local government.
Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the extent to which the United States Postal Service has sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court ruled that an exception to the FTCA that barred liability for the "negligent transmission of mail" did not apply to a claim for injuries caused when someone tripped over mail left by a USPS employee. Instead, the exception only applied to damage caused to the mail itself or that resulted from its loss or delay.
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the right of the executive branch to revoke a citizen's passport for reasons of national security and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. under the Passport Act of 1926.
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not considered "obscene" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, which prohibits the mailing of obscene material. It was the first case in which the Court engaged in plenary review of a Post Office Department order holding obscene matter "nonmailable".
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine ONE violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.
Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964), is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material. By a 7–2 margin, the Court held that a seizure of the books was unconstitutional, since no hearing had been held on whether the books were obscene, and it reversed a Kansas Supreme Court decision that upheld the seizure.
Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.
Hilmann v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court unanimously ruled that a Virginia statute revoking beneficiary status for spouses whose marital status has changed was pre-empted by the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (1954).
Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957), was a Supreme Court case that addressed issues of obscenity, free speech, and due process. The case stemmed from the confiscation and destruction of books from a New York City bookstore. The court's determination was that:
A state injunction against distribution of material designated as "obscene" does not violate freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Company v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921), was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the United States Postmaster General's power to revoke second-class mail privileges under the Espionage Act of 1917. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the owners of the Milwaukee Leader, a socialist daily newspaper in Milwaukee, Wisconsin due to Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson's revocation of the Leader's second-class mailing privileges on the grounds of past anti-war articles it had published. The court ruled 7–2 in favor of the federal government, with Justice Clarke delivering the majority opinion while Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. dissented.
WCLM was a radio station operating on 101.9 FM in Chicago between 1957 and 1966. The station lost its broadcast license over several violations, the most notable of which was the use of its subsidiary communications authority (SCA) subcarrier facility to transmit the results of horse races on an additional audio channel.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about whether an individual can obtain judicial review regarding a revoked visa petition based on non-discretionary criteria. The US Supreme Court ruled that visa revocations are left to the discretion of the Homeland Security Department.