Grosjean v. American Press Co, No. 303

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation80 L.Ed. 660,297 U.S. 233,56 S.Ct. 444
Decision Date10 February 1936
Docket NumberNo. 303
PartiesGROSJEAN, Sup'r of Public Accounts of Louisiana v. AMERICAN PRESS CO., Inc., et al

297 U.S. 233
56 S.Ct. 444
80 L.Ed. 660
GROSJEAN, Sup'r of Public Accounts of Louisiana

v.

AMERICAN PRESS CO., Inc., et al.

No. 303.
Argued Jan. 13, 14, 1936.
Decided Feb. 10, 1936.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Page 234

Messrs. Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, La., and Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 234-236 intentionally omitted]

Page 237

Messrs. Esmond Phelps, of New Orleans, La., and Elisha Hanson, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 237-239 intentionally omitted]

Page 240

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by appellees, nine publishers of newspapers in the state of Louisiana, to enjoin the enforcement against them of the provisions of section 1 of the act of the Legislature of Louisiana known as Act No. 23, passed and approved July 12, 1934, as follows: 'That every person, firm, association or corporation, domestic or foreign, engaged in the business of selling, or making any charge for, advertising or for advertisements, whether printed or published, or to be printed or published, in any newspaper, magazine, periodical or publication whatever having a circulation of more than 20,000 copies per week, or displayed and exhibited, or to be displayed and exhibited, by means of moving pictures, in the State of Louisiana, shall, in addition to all other taxes and licenses levied and assessed in this State, pay a license tax for the privilege of engaging in such business in this State of two per cent. (2%) of the gross receipts of such business.'

The nine publishers who brought the suit publish thirteen newspapers; and these thirteen publications are the

Page 241

only ones within the state of Louisiana having each a circulation of more than 20,000 copies per week, although the lower court finds there are four other daily newspapers each having a circulation of 'slightly less than 20,000 copies pert week' which are in competition with those published by appellees both as to circulation and as to advertising. In addition, there are 120 weekly newspapers published in the state, also in competition, to a greater or less degree, with the newspapers of appellees. The revenue derived from appellees' newspapers comes almost entirely from regular subscribers or purchasers thereof and from payments received for the insertion of advertisements therein.

The act requires every one subject to the tax to file a sworn report every three months showing the amount and the gross receipts from the business described in section 1. The resulting tax must be paid when the report is filed. Failure to file the report or pay the tax as thus provided constitutes a misdemeanor and subjects the offender to a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, for each violation. Any corporation violating the acts subjects itself to the payment of $500 to be recovered by suit. All of the appellees are corporations. The lower court entered a decree for appellees and granted a permanent injunction. (D.C.) 10 F.Supp. 161.

First. Appellant assails the federal jurisdiction of the court below on the ground that the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $3,000, as required by paragraph 1 of section 24 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1). The case arises under the Federal Constitution; and the bill alleges, and the record shows, that the requisite amount is involved in respect of each of six of the nine appellees. This is enough to sustain the jurisdiction of the District Court. The motion was to dismiss the bill—that is to say, the bill in its entirety—and in that form it was properly denied. No motion to dismiss was made or considered

Page 242

by the lower court as to the three appellees in respect of whom the jurisdictional amount was insufficient, and that question, therefore, is not before us. The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178, 189, 22 L.Ed. 60; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27, 32, 7 S.Ct. 1066, 30 L.Ed. 1083.

Second. The objection also is made that the bill does not make a case for equitable relief. But the objection is clearly without merit. As pointed out in Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U.S. 813, 815, 49 S.Ct. 256, 73 L.Ed. 972, the laws of Louisiana afford no remedy whereby restitution of taxes and property exacted may be enforced, even where payment has been made under both protest and compulsion. It is true that the present act contains a provision (section 5) to the effect that where it is established to the satisfaction of the Supervisor of Public Accounts of the state that any payment has been made under the act which was 'not due and collectible,' the supervisor is authorized to refund the amount out of any funds on hand collected by virtue of the act and not remitted to the state treasurer according to law. It seems clear that this refers only to a payment not due and collectible within the terms of the act, and does not authorize a refund on the ground that the act is invalid. Moreover, the act allows the supervisor to make remittances immediately to the state treasurer of taxes paid under the act, and requires him to do so not later than the 30th day after the last day of the preceding quarter; in which even the right to a refund, if not sooner exercised, would be lost. Whether an aggrieved taxpayer may obtain relief under section 5 is, at best, a matter of speculation. In no view can it properly be said that there exists a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 688, 15 S.Ct. 555, 39 L.Ed. 578; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Weld County, 247 U.S. 282, 285, 38 S.Ct. 510, 62 L.Ed. 1110.

Third. The validity of the act is assailed as violating the Federal Constitution in two particulars: (1) That it abridges the freedom of the press in contravention of the due process clause contained in section 1 of the Fourteenth

Page 243

Amendment; (2) that it denies appellees the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the same amendment.

1. The first point presents a question of the utmost gravity and importance; for, if well made, it goes to the heart of the natural right of the members of an organized society, united for their common good, to impart and acquire information about their common interests. The First Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that 'Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' While this provision is not a restraint upon the powers of the states, the states are precluded from abridging the freedom of speech or of the press by force of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232, this court held that the term 'due process of law' does not require presentment or indictment by a grand jury as a prerequisite to prosecution by a state for a criminal offense. And the important point of that conclusion here is that it was deduced from the fact that the Fifth Amendment, which contains the due process of law clause in its national aspect, also required an indictment as a prerequisite to a prosecution for crime under federal law; and it was thought that since no part of the amendment could be regarded as superfluous, the term 'due process of law' did not, ex vi termini, include presentment or indictment by a grand jury in any case; and that the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted as having been used in the same sense, and as having no greater extent. But in Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 65, 68, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527, we held that in the light of subsequent decisions the sweeping language of the Hurtado Case could not be accepted without qualification. We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe-

Page 244

guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution.

That freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
657 practice notes
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...legitimate press activity, probably would be construed as falling within this proscription. See also Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 But while the Bulletin is well situated to press this claim, it has not yet seen fit to sue Mayor Rizzo or the C......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...Court has noted that "informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment." Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 449, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). In a similar vein, disclosure increases the quantity of information reaching the body politic and fu......
  • Philadelphia News., Inc. v. Borough C., Etc., Swarthmore, Civ. A. No. 74-1569.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • August 13, 1974
    ...alleged to be libelous. Cf. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 880 L.Ed. 660 (1936). See also Note, Freedom of Expression in a Commercial Context, 78 Harv.L.R. 1191 (1965)." Wulp v. Corcoran, sup......
  • Schick v. Reed 8212 5677, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1974
    ...the primary resource for analyzing the scope of Art. II is our own republican system of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 248—249, 56 S.Ct. 444, 448—449, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). The separation of powers doctrine does not vest the Chief Executive with an unrestrained......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
652 cases
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...legitimate press activity, probably would be construed as falling within this proscription. See also Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 But while the Bulletin is well situated to press this claim, it has not yet seen fit to sue Mayor Rizzo or the C......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...Court has noted that "informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment." Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 449, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). In a similar vein, disclosure increases the quantity of information reaching the body politic and fu......
  • Philadelphia News., Inc. v. Borough C., Etc., Swarthmore, Civ. A. No. 74-1569.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • August 13, 1974
    ...alleged to be libelous. Cf. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 880 L.Ed. 660 (1936). See also Note, Freedom of Expression in a Commercial Context, 78 Harv.L.R. 1191 (1965)." Wulp v. Corcoran, sup......
  • Schick v. Reed 8212 5677, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1974
    ...the primary resource for analyzing the scope of Art. II is our own republican system of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 248—249, 56 S.Ct. 444, 448—449, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). The separation of powers doctrine does not vest the Chief Executive with an unrestrained......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • National Security and Access, a Structural Perspective
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy Nbr. 11-3, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...(“without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.”). 357. BLACK, supra note 356, at 41. 358. 297 U.S. 233 (1936). 359. Id. at 250; see also Hennings, Jr., supra note 248, at 669. 360. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 249-50 (1936) (e......
  • Ending Political Discrimination in the Workplace.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 Nbr. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."). (39) Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245 (1936) ("The struggle between the proponents of measures to that end and those who asserted the right of free expression was continuous ......
  • The Fiction of the First Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 6-2, June 1953
    • June 1, 1953
    ...Relations Board, 341 U.S. 694 (1951). 5 A tax discriminatory toward certain newspapers was held invalid in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); newspapers were held to be subject to the National Labor Relations Act cases involving public employment,6 or a disclaimer of membe......
  • Access to Public Records and the Role of the News Media in Providing Information About COVID-19
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy Nbr. 11-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...42. See, e.g., Journalists’ Guide to HIPAA during COVID-19, supra note 40. 43. Id. 44. See id. 45. Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936). 46. Daniel Chang, Herald Drafted a Suit Seeking ALF Records. DeSantis Aide Pressured Law Firm Not to File It, MIAMI HERALD (Apr. 11, 2020, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT