Corona Daily Independent v. City of Corona

Background

A local newspaper in Corona, California challenged a city ordinance that imposed a license tax on anyone doing business in the city, explicitly including newspaper publishing. The paper refused to pay the fee, and the California courts held that the paper could be compelled to pay under the ordinance. The newspaper asked the Supreme Court to review that state-court ruling.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a municipal flat license tax can be applied to press activity that the First Amendment protects, effectively charging for the right to publish. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so the lower-court decision remains in force and the paper must pay the fee for now. Two Justices disagreed with that refusal and argued the tax may be unconstitutional because it imposes a price on exercising a constitutional right.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the City of Corona may continue to enforce its license tax against this newspaper, and other local publishers in similar situations get no relief from this decision. Municipalities that collect business license fees that include publishers can continue enforcement while the constitutional issue remains unresolved at the national level. The denial is not a final ruling on the First Amendment question, and the Court could reach a different result if it later accepts a similar case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, dissented from the denial of review, citing Murdock v. Pennsylvania and arguing that a flat license tax is "a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights," which threatens free-press freedoms.