Mills v. Alabama

Background

James Mills, the editor of a Birmingham daily newspaper, published an editorial on election day urging voters to change the city government to a mayor‑council system. Alabama charged him under a state corrupt‑practices law that made it a crime to do “any electioneering” or urge votes on the day of an election. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and upheld the law as a reasonable restriction.

Reasoning

The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a State can criminally punish a newspaper editor for publishing an election‑day editorial urging a particular vote. The Court concluded that the First Amendment’s protection of the press covers such political discussion and that the Alabama law, by silencing editorials on the one day when replies matter most, abridged freedom of the press. The Court rejected the State’s justification that the law prevented confusing last‑minute charges because the statute also barred effective replies.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court and held the statute invalid as applied to ordinary election‑day editorials. That ruling removes a criminal threat that had already chilled editorial comment in Alabama and restores the right of newspapers to publish opinions about matters before voters. The decision leaves open further state proceedings consistent with the opinion, because the case is remanded for further steps.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring Justice emphasized the real chilling effect on Alabama newspapers and supported review now; another Justice would have dismissed for lack of a final state judgment and rested reversal on narrower fair‑warning concerns.