Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs
Headline: Court refuses to hear challenge, leaving Treasury licensing rule that requires Americans to apply for OFAC permission before receiving magazines, films, or other publications from China, North Korea, and North Vietnam in place.
Holding: The Court declined to review a lower court ruling upholding Treasury Department licensing rules, leaving in effect the requirement that Americans apply for OFAC licenses to receive publications from China, North Korea, and North Vietnam.
- Leaves Treasury licensing requirement in effect for foreign publications from designated countries.
- Requires private readers to submit time‑consuming license applications before delivery.
- Universities and libraries may receive materials under approved programs without payment restrictions.
Summary
Background
Petitioners are addressees of mail packages containing publications originating in mainland China, North Korea, or North Vietnam. Customs detained those packages under the Foreign Assets Control Regulations and told the recipients that delivery would occur only if they obtained licenses from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. The recipients sued, arguing the licensing requirement abridges their First Amendment right to receive published material. The Court of Appeals upheld the regulations, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Reasoning
The central question presented is whether American citizens can be required to apply for a license before receiving magazines, films, or other publications from the designated countries. In his dissent, Justice Black explained that the licensing scheme imposes a heavier burden than a simple reply card: applicants must file detailed duplicate forms, face uncertain grant decisions, and wait days or weeks for processing. The government offered the prevention of currency outflow as justification, but Black noted broader foreign-exchange rules already criminalize payments to those countries and that exceptions let approved universities and libraries receive material without payment restrictions. He concluded the licensing requirement raises a serious First Amendment issue.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied review, the lower court’s ruling stands and the licensing requirement remains in force for now. Private readers who seek materials from those foreign sources may face delays, extra paperwork, and potential deterrence from receiving publications. Approved institutions such as universities and libraries remain able to import materials under special programs. The Supreme Court has not decided the constitutional merits, so the legal question could be revisited later.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented from the denial of review and urged the Court to hear the First Amendment claim. He also criticized the majority’s strict application of the 90-day filing rule, noting the petition arrived late because of a severe snowstorm and arguing for waiver so the merits could be heard. Justice Harlan would have granted review but deferred the timing question.
Opinions in this case:
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?