Mills v. Alabama
384 U.S. 214 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that makes it a criminal offense for a newspaper to publish an editorial on election day urging citizens to vote a certain way on a ballot measure is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.
Facts:
- On November 6, 1962, the city of Birmingham, Alabama, held a special election.
- Voters were to decide whether to keep their existing city commission form of government or to adopt a mayor-council form of government.
- James E. Mills was the editor of the Birmingham Post-Herald, a daily newspaper.
- On the day of the election, the Birmingham Post-Herald published an editorial written by Mills.
- The editorial strongly urged voters to cast their ballots in favor of the mayor-council form of government.
Procedural Posture:
- James E. Mills was charged in an Alabama trial court with violating § 285 of the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act.
- The trial court sustained Mills's demurrers to the complaint, dismissing the charge on the grounds that the statute violated the state and federal constitutions.
- The State of Alabama, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama, the state's highest court, reversed the trial court, holding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of the state's police power and did not unreasonably limit freedom of the press.
- The Alabama Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
- Mills, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 an Alabama law that makes it a crime for a newspaper editor to publish an editorial on election day urging voters to vote a certain way on a ballot proposition violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. A state law that makes it a crime for a newspaper editor to publish an election day editorial violates the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A major purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, which includes the structure and form of government. The press was specifically chosen by the Framers to serve as a check on government and to keep the public informed. The Alabama Corrupt Practices Act silences the press at the very time it can be most effective, which is a flagrant abridgment of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The state's justification—that the law prevents 'confusive last-minute charges'—is fatally flawed because the law only prevents responses on election day to charges made the day before, rendering it ineffective at its stated purpose. No test of reasonableness can save a state law that criminalizes the act of a newspaper urging people how to vote in a public election.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The Alabama law is a blatant violation of freedom of the press. This opinion, while joining the majority, emphasizes the urgency of deciding the case due to the law's 'chilling effect' on speech. Since the prosecution of Mills began, editorial commentary on election day has ceased throughout Alabama, demonstrating that the threat of sanctions deters the exercise of First Amendment rights almost as potently as their actual application. Given the fundamental nature of the rights at stake—the right to express views on matters before the electorate—the Court is justified in treating the state court's judgment as final and striking down the unconstitutional law without further delay.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the decision below cannot stand, but the Court should not have heard the case on jurisdictional grounds. This opinion dissents from the majority's decision to hear the case, arguing the Alabama Supreme Court's judgment was not 'final' as required by statute, since Mills still faced a trial. However, since the majority reached the merits, this opinion concurs in the judgment of reversal on narrower grounds. The Alabama statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide fair warning that its prohibition on 'electioneering' or soliciting votes applied to the publication of a newspaper editorial. Reversing on these grounds would avoid the majority's broader First Amendment holding.
Analysis:
Mills v. Alabama establishes a powerful precedent protecting core political speech, particularly by the press, during the most critical moments of the democratic process. The Court's categorical rejection of the state's 'reasonableness' justification signifies that direct, content-based restrictions on political editorials face the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. This decision fortifies the role of the press as a public forum for debate and criticism of government, ensuring it cannot be silenced on election day under the guise of maintaining electoral order. The ruling constrains the ability of states to regulate the timing and content of political publications, solidifying First Amendment protections for last-minute political discourse.
