Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. Olson

1931-06-01

Headline: Court strikes down Minnesota law letting courts shut down scandal-sheet newspapers, protecting press from prior censorship while leaving later libel remedies intact for public-official accusations.

Holding: The Court held that a Minnesota law allowing courts to permanently enjoin newspapers as public nuisances for "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" publications violated the Fourteenth Amendment by authorizing prior restraint and effective censorship.

Real World Impact:

Stops courts from shutting newspapers before trial using nuisance laws.
Protects publishers from prior censorship when reporting on public officials.
Preserves libel laws for later punishment and civil remedies.

Topics: press freedom, government censorship, libel and defamation, state laws on newspapers

Summary

Background

A Minnesota law from 1925 allowed courts to treat a newspaper or periodical “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” as a public nuisance and permanently stop its publication. The County Attorney sued to enjoin a small paper called The Saturday Press after nine issues and lengthy exhibits accused local officials and others of corruption and criminal ties. The state courts upheld the statute and a district court entered a permanent injunction after the publisher admitted publishing the material.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether that statutory scheme amounted to an unlawful prior restraint on the press. The majority explained that the law authorized judges to suppress a paper as a nuisance unless the publisher proved the truth of the charges and showed good motives and justifiable ends. Because the statute’s operation allowed courts to stop future publication and to punish resumption as contempt, the Court held it amounted to censorship and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of press liberty — regardless of whether the particular articles were true.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents states from using similar nuisance laws to shut down critical newspapers before trial. Publishers remain subject to later civil or criminal libel laws and may be punished after publication, but courts may not bar future issues in advance under this kind of statute. The decision protects journalists’ ability to publish allegations about public officials while leaving post-publication legal remedies available.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Butler dissented, arguing the statute properly targets a business of malicious, defamatory publishing and that the record showed The Saturday Press was largely abusive and dangerous; he would have upheld the state injunction.