Meese v. Keene

Background

Barry Keene, a California state senator and attorney, wanted to show three Canadian films distributed by the National Film Board of Canada about nuclear war and acid rain. The Justice Department told the NFB that those films qualified as 'political propaganda' under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires registration, reports, and sometimes labels for materials from foreign principals. Keene sued to block the designation and labeling, arguing the label would harm his reputation and deter him from showing the films.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court agreed Keene had standing because he showed a concrete risk of reputational harm supported by affidavits and a poll. But the Court reversed the District Court. Justice Stevens explained that the Act defines 'political propaganda' in a broad, neutral way, that the law does not ban or censor the materials, and that disclosure helps the public judge foreign-source advocacy. The Court also relied on the long history of the statutory definition and gave Congress leeway to use defined terms.

Real world impact

The decision lets the Justice Department continue to apply the 'political propaganda' classification and the Act’s labeling and reporting rules to materials from foreign principals. People or organizations that exhibit foreign-funded advocacy may need to disclose relationships and face public reactions. The Court reversed the permanent injunction for these three films but left open future challenges to the statute’s requirements.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall) dissented in part, arguing the label is pejorative, chills speech, can deter public debate, and that disclosure may have an unfair deterrent effect.