Gilbert v. Minnesota
254 U.S. 325, 41 S. Ct. 125, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1161 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, as a valid exercise of its police power, prohibit speech that advocates against enlistment in the armed forces during wartime, as such a law serves the state's interests in preserving public peace and cooperating with the national government's war efforts without usurping exclusive federal powers.
Facts:
- Minnesota enacted a statute making it unlawful to interfere with or discourage military enlistment.
- The statute specifically prohibited advocating, in a public meeting of more than five people, that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces.
- While the United States was at war with Germany, Joseph Gilbert spoke at a public meeting of the Non-partisan League.
- In his speech, Gilbert stated that the U.S. was 'stampeded into this War by newspaper rot to pull England’s chestnuts out of the fire for her.'
- Gilbert also questioned why Americans could not vote on conscription and suggested conscripting wealth instead of men.
- Gilbert's speech was met with protesting interruptions, accusations, threats, and general disorder from the audience.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Gilbert was charged by indictment in a Minnesota state trial court with violating a state statute against discouraging military enlistment.
- Gilbert filed a demurrer to the indictment, which the trial court overruled.
- Following a jury trial, Gilbert was convicted.
- The trial court sentenced Gilbert to pay a $500 fine and be imprisoned for one year.
- Gilbert appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, where he was the appellant.
- The Supreme Court of Minnesota, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- Gilbert then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that makes it a crime to advocate that men should not enlist in the military forces of the United States violate the U.S. Constitution by usurping Congress's exclusive war powers or by abridging the right to free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McKenna
No, the Minnesota statute does not violate the U.S. Constitution. A state has a legitimate interest in the federal government's war efforts and may use its police power to support national purposes and preserve public order. The court reasoned that the United States is composed of the states, and the states are intimately concerned with the outcome of national wars. Therefore, a state may act to maintain the morale of its citizens and prevent obstruction of national goals, which is a patriotic service, not a usurpation of Congress's exclusive war powers. The court compared this to a state's power to prohibit desecration of the U.S. flag as upheld in Halter v. Nebraska. Furthermore, the statute is a valid exercise of the state's police power to preserve peace and prevent violence, as Gilbert's speech incited disorder. The court also held that the right to free speech is not absolute and can be limited, especially during wartime, citing the precedent set in cases like Schenck v. United States. Gilbert's speech was not a legitimate critique of policy but a deliberate misrepresentation intended to discourage the war effort, and as such, it did not merit constitutional protection.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brandeis
Yes, the Minnesota statute violates the U.S. Constitution. The power to raise armies and conduct war is exclusively federal, and states may not legislate in this field, especially when Congress has already acted by passing the federal Espionage Act. The dissent argued that the right to speak freely about functions of the federal government is a privilege of U.S. citizenship that states are powerless to curtail. The Minnesota law was not a limited war measure but a broad statute that proscribes the teaching of pacifism at all times, without regard to any 'clear and present danger.' Brandeis contended that 'in frank expression of conflicting opinion lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action,' and that suppression of speech is perilous. He further argued that the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited to property rights but must also include the liberty to teach doctrines like pacifism, so long as Congress has not declared that public safety requires its suppression.
Analysis:
This case represents an early 20th-century view that subordinated free speech rights to national security interests during wartime, affirming a state's role in policing such speech. The majority's opinion expands the concept of state police power to include the protection of national interests, viewing state and federal powers as cooperative rather than strictly separate in this context. Justice Brandeis's dissent is highly significant for its robust defense of free speech and its articulation of federal preemption, laying the intellectual groundwork for later jurisprudence that would offer greater protection to political speech and more strictly define the limits of state power in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction. The case highlights the historical tension between federalism, wartime security, and individual liberties.
