Lamont v. Postmaster General

1965-05-24

Headline: Court blocks Post Office rule requiring recipients to sign and request delivery for foreign political mail, protecting people’s right to receive controversial foreign publications without affirmative registration.

Holding: The Act cannot constitutionally require an addressee to return a written reply card before receiving foreign "communist political propaganda," because that written-request requirement burdens the addressee’s First Amendment right to receive publications.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Post Office from requiring written requests before delivering foreign political mail.
Protects individuals’ right to receive foreign publications without registering with the government.
Reduces chilling effect on teachers, public officials, and publishers worried about being listed.

Topics: free speech, mail and publication rights, foreign political mail, government censorship

Summary

Background

An individual who publishes and distributes pamphlets and another private recipient had unsealed foreign mail detained by the Post Office because it was labeled "communist political propaganda." Under a 1962 law, postal authorities screened unsealed mail from certain countries, sent notices to addressees, and required a returned reply card within 20 days before delivering the material. Earlier practice let people list themselves to receive similar future items, but that listkeeping was later stopped and the Post Office shifted to per-item notices.

Reasoning

The core question was whether making a person return a written card before receiving foreign political mail violates the First Amendment. The Court said yes. It held that the requirement to perform an official act (return the card) imposes a burden and is likely to deter people from receiving ideas. The opinion compared the rule to prior cases that struck down taxes, licenses, or registration requirements that conditioned speech or distribution. The Court found that the written-request rule imposes an unconstitutional limitation on the addressee’s freedom to receive publications and thus invalidated the Act as construed and applied.

Real world impact

As a practical result, the Post Office may not condition delivery of unsealed foreign political material on an addressee’s prior written request. The decision protects recipients — including publishers, private citizens, and public employees worried about security clearances — from having to register to receive controversial foreign publications. The Court reversed the dismissal in the Lamont appeal and affirmed the lower court’s ruling for the other recipient.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion emphasized that the First Amendment protects the right to receive publications and warned against even minor administrative barriers that chill free expression.