Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack

Supreme Court of the United States
19 L. Ed. 2d 966, 390 U.S. 139, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2549 (1968)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A film censorship ordinance that imposes a prior restraint on speech is procedurally unconstitutional if it fails to ensure that the censor will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court, and also fails to assure a prompt final judicial decision.

Facts:

The City of Chicago enacted a Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance.
The ordinance prohibited the public exhibition of any motion picture without a prior permit from the superintendent of police.
The ordinance established a multi-step administrative review process involving a Film Review Section and a Motion Picture Appeal Board.
This administrative process allowed for a total of 50 to 57 days to pass from the submission of a film to the point where the city was required to initiate judicial proceedings if it denied a permit.
The ordinance required the city's Appeal Board to file for an injunction to prevent the showing of a film it sought to censor, but it contained no provision guaranteeing a prompt final decision from the court.
Appellants were motion picture exhibitors who were subject to this ordinance and were prevented from showing certain films.

Procedural Posture:

The Circuit Court of Cook County, a state trial court, granted permanent injunctions requested by the City of Chicago, preventing appellants from showing certain films.
Appellants appealed the injunctions to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court.
The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's orders, upholding the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance.
The appellants, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from 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 the Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because its procedural framework, which allows for a 50-to-57-day administrative review period and does not guarantee a prompt final judicial decision, fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards against the dangers of a censorship system?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. The Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A noncriminal prior restraint process is constitutionally permissible only if it includes procedural safeguards to obviate the dangers of censorship. Relying on the standards set in Freedman v. Maryland, the Court found the Chicago ordinance deficient in two critical respects. First, the 50-to-57-day period for the administrative process is not the 'specified brief period' within which the censor must either grant a permit or seek a court order. Second, the ordinance's failure to include any provision assuring a 'prompt final judicial decision' is a fatal constitutional flaw, as it creates the risk of indefinite suppression of speech through procedural delays.

Concurring - Black and Douglas, JJ.

Yes. The judgment should be reversed based on the reasoning in Freedman v. Maryland, but also based on the principles established in Redrup v. New York.

Concurring - Harlan, J.

Yes. Concurs in the result without a written opinion.

Concurring - Stewart, J.

Yes. Concurs in the judgment based on the precedent set in Redrup v. New York.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces and clarifies the strict procedural requirements for prior restraint systems that the Court established in Freedman v. Maryland. By striking down the Chicago ordinance, the Court made clear that lengthy administrative delays are unconstitutional and that a guarantee of a 'prompt final judicial decision' is an indispensable safeguard. This ruling significantly curtails the power of municipal censorship boards by imposing tight, constitutionally mandated deadlines on both administrative and judicial review, thereby protecting speech from being suppressed through bureaucratic delay.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack (1968)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"