Lamont v. Postmaster General
381 U.S. 301, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2286 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute requiring an addressee to affirmatively request in writing the delivery of mail that the government has determined to be "communist political propaganda" is an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. The government may not impose an affirmative obligation on a citizen as a prerequisite for receiving mail, as this creates a deterrent effect on the free exchange of ideas.
Facts:
- Congress passed the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962.
- The Act required the Post Office to screen unsealed mail from certain foreign countries and identify material deemed to be 'communist political propaganda.'
- Under the Act, such mail was to be detained by the Postmaster General.
- The Post Office would send a notice to the intended recipient (addressee), informing them that the mail would be destroyed unless they returned an attached reply card affirmatively requesting its delivery.
- In 1963, the Post Office detained a copy of the 'Peking Review #12' addressed to Dr. Corliss Lamont.
- The Post Office sent Lamont a notice that his mail was being detained and would only be delivered if he returned the request card.
- A similar piece of mail addressed to appellee Heilberg was also detained under the same procedure.
- Both Lamont and Heilberg refused to return the reply cards to request delivery of their mail.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Corliss Lamont sued the Postmaster General in a three-judge federal District Court, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the statute.
- The District Court dismissed Lamont's complaint as moot after the Post Office stated it would deliver all his mail unimpeded.
- Lamont (appellant) appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- Separately, Heilberg sued the Postmaster General in a different federal District Court.
- Heilberg's District Court found the statute unconstitutional on its merits.
- The Government (appellant) appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases for its review.
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 federal statute that requires the Postmaster General to detain mail determined to be 'communist political propaganda' and to deliver it only upon the addressee's written request violate the addressee's First Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the federal statute violates the addressee's First Amendment rights. Requiring an addressee to take an affirmative step, such as returning a reply card, to receive their mail is an unconstitutional limitation on the unfettered exercise of First Amendment freedoms. The Court reasoned that this requirement is likely to have a deterrent effect, as addressees might fear being monitored or facing negative consequences for requesting literature that federal officials have condemned as 'communist political propaganda.' This chilling effect is particularly potent for those in sensitive positions or public employment. The Court held that this regime is fundamentally at odds with the 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate protected by the First Amendment.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The First Amendment necessarily protects the 'right to receive' publications, as the dissemination of ideas is meaningless if willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them; a marketplace of ideas requires buyers as well as sellers. The government's requirement to opt-in to receive mail is not a mere inconvenience but an unconstitutional inhibition on a fundamental right. Even if the government's interest is not to control content, it has failed to show a 'compelling interest' that would justify this limitation. The government must use the least intrusive means to achieve its goals, and this statute fails that standard by impeding delivery even to a willing recipient.
Analysis:
This landmark case was the first in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute for violating the First Amendment. The decision established the 'right to receive' information as a crucial component of free speech, protecting not just the speaker but also the listener or reader. This ruling prevents the government from creating burdens or deterrents that might chill an individual's willingness to access unpopular or controversial ideas. The precedent set in Lamont has become foundational in opposing government censorship, impacting later cases involving everything from library book removals to internet content filtering.
