Louis A. Negre, V
Headline: Court declines to review customs rules requiring U.S. recipients to obtain licenses to receive publications from China, North Korea, and North Vietnam, leaving lower-court restrictions and delays in place.
Holding: The Court denied review, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that upholds Treasury licensing requirements for receiving publications from China, North Korea, and North Vietnam.
- Leaves licensing and detention rules intact for publications from designated countries.
- Requires private recipients to file detailed license applications before delivery, causing delays.
- Exempts approved universities and libraries from licensing for research and educational shipments.
Summary
Background
The case involves U.S. recipients of mail packages containing magazines and films originating in mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Customs detained those packages and notified recipients that delivery would occur only if they obtained licenses from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Several recipients sued, claiming the licensing requirement and possible refusal of delivery violated their First Amendment right to receive published material.
Reasoning
The central question is whether citizens can be required to apply for a government license before receiving publications from those designated countries. The Court of Appeals upheld the licensing rules as a way to control transactions with those countries. The Supreme Court declined to review that decision, so the appeals court ruling remains in force. In his dissent, Justice Black said the licensing scheme imposes a severe prior restraint, is harder on readers than a mere reply card requirement, may cause substantial delays, and could conflict with the Court’s earlier free-speech decisions.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court refused review, the lower-court ruling allowing the licensing requirement stands and recipients must follow the permit process or risk non-delivery. The licensing process can take days or weeks and may discourage private citizens from seeking materials, while approved universities and libraries can receive materials under special programs. The Supreme Court’s action was procedural, not a final decision on the constitutional merits, and dissenting Justices urged the Court to hear the important free-speech question.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Black (joined by Justice Douglas) would have granted review, arguing the case raises a vital First Amendment issue and that a snowstorm should not bar a late filing; Justice Harlan favored granting review too.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?