Assignment:
Review the example of the case briefing of Dennis v. United States. Then, write one page to brief the case "New York Times Company v. United States (1971)"
1. Background:
- Briefly explain the facts of the case.
- Identify the competing claims of the case which mean identify what is being argued by both sides.
- Identify the constitutional question?
- How is a First Amendment right being violated? On the other side, what is the competing interest? Try to give a sympathetic account of how the right is not being violated or how a restriction of a right is justified.
2. Decision:
- What is the holding in the case? (i.e. who won?)
- Explain the Court's the reasons for a decision, that is, WHY did the one party win?
- What is the understanding of the First Amendment offered by the majority?
- If there is a concurring or dissenting opinion, also explain the reasons of ONE other opinion.
3. Reaction:
- Which opinion do you agree with and WHY? Did the Court make the right decision? Explain why or why not. (1 point)
- Raise a further question that you would like to explore or have explained. (do not ask "yes" or "no" questions that doesn't require significant response)
Example:
Case: Dennis v. United States
Background:
In 1948, Eugene Dennis along with ten leaders of the Communist Party were convicted of violating the Smith Act. The Smith Act passed in 1940 made it illegal to promote or advocate the "overthrow or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence." Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, the constitutional question brought forth to the Supreme Court can be posed as the following: Does the Smith Act violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech? Especially considering the vagueness of the statute. On the one hand, there is an interest in the government to protect its stability from a violent rebellion. However, there is also a concern for the freedom of political expression.
Decision:
The decision of the Court delivered by Chief Justice Vinson was to uphold the lower Courts' decision, concluding that the Smith Act did not violate the First Amendment. The argument being that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from a violent or dangerous rebellion. Furthermore, the Court contended that simply because the government has the ability to (most likely) overthrow rebellions that may come their way whether that be because of resources or physical forces, this does not mean they should wait until rebellions strike. They contended that simply because the Communist Party's activities from 1945-1948 did not lead to a violent attempt to overthrow the government that did not mean that they were not ready to make one. Moreover, the Court adopted the following statement: "In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil,' dis-counted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." On the subject of vagueness, the Court advanced that even though the act was not clear-cut, it was no vaguer than the "clear and present danger" that could be either advocated explicitly in the text or as a means for constitutional interpretation.
Justice Jackson concurred arguing that this decision was that of a quest for a legal standard to further cement an already existing statute against radical rebellions. He highlighted the need to re-evaluate the constitutional doctrines under the current circumstances, not that of which they were devised under. Justice Jackson agrees to keep the "clear and present danger" standard unchanged and extend it to communist. However, he also highlights that the charges here are more so of criminal conspiracy and not an actual attempt to overthrow.
Justice Black dissented, highlighting what the crime was in this case and what it was not. He explained that the plaintiffs involved in this case were not charged with any attempt to overthrow the government. Instead, they were charged because they decided to associate and promulgate ideas that although may be contrary to the government do not warrant censorship. However, he also suspends this thought and examines the decision through the lens of the "clear and present danger" test, affirming that the "crimes" of the plaintiffs do not present either. He goes so far as to invoke that the Founders valued Freedom of Speech more than the risks that may occur, of which they were knowledgeable. In sum that Freedom of Speech is a compelling interest to protect that, in this case, is being violated merely on the claims of danger, not on facts of danger.
Reaction:
I believe the Court made the wrong decision, and that it reflects American society's broader ideological standpoint of the time. Just because Communism or the Communist Party may have been spreading viewpoints contrary to mainstream ideology or even the government itself does not warrant censorship. I believe there is no clear or present danger in this case that is threatening to the government nor is their reasonable grounds to believe that was the intentions of the party. I agree very much so with Justice Black's dissent, especially regarding the centrality and importance of Freedom of Speech conceived at the founding of American democracy. I do not quite understand Justice Jackson's concurrence. On the one hand, he is upholding the verdict yet also noting that the Communist Party did not attempt to rebel violently against the government. Is he giving weight to both sides and ultimately siding with the majority or simply explaining the need for maintaining the clear and present danger standard?