Lawrence Weber v. Frederick Freed
Decision Date | 13 December 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 644,644 |
Citation | 60 L.Ed. 308,36 S.Ct. 131,239 U.S. 325 |
Parties | L. LAWRENCE WEBER, Appt., v. FREDERICK S. FREED, Deputy Collector of United States Customs in Charge of the Port of Newark, N. J |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Benjamin F. Spellman and Charles A. Towne for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 326 intentionally omitted] The court declined to hear Assistant Attorney General Warren for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 327 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
The act of July 31, 1912 (§ 1, chap. 263, 37 Stat. at L. 240, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 10,416), makes it unlawful 'to bring or to cause to be brought into the United States from abroad, any film or other pictorial representation of any prize fight or encounter of pugilists, under whatever name, which is designed to be used or may be used for purposes of public exhibition.' With this provision in force, in April, 1915, the appellant brought to the port of entry of the city of Newark in the state of New Jersey photographic films of a pugilistic encounter or prize fight which had taken place at Havana, and demanded of the deputy collector of customs in charge the right to enter the films. On refusal of the official to permit the entry, appellant filed his bill of complaint to enforce the right to enter by a mandatory injunction and by other appropriate relief to accomplish the purpose in view. The ground relied on for the relief was the averment that the prohibition of the act of Con- gress in question was repugnant to the Constitution because, in enacting the same, 'Congress exceeded its designated powers under the Constitution of the United States, and attempted, under the guise of its powers under the commerce clause, to exercise police power expressly reserved in the states.' The collector moved to dismiss on the ground that the bill stated no cause of action because the assailed provision of the act of Congress was constitutional, and therefore on the face of the bill there was no jurisdiction to award the relief sought.
The motion was sustained and a decree of dismissal was rendered, and it is this decree which it is sought to reverse by the appeal which is before us, the propositions relied upon to accomplish that result but reiterating in various forms of statement the contention as to the repugnancy to the Constitution of the provision of the act of Congress. But in view of the complete power of Congress over foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Century Arms, Inc. v. Kennedy
...on its pre-enactment import licenses, its claim of unconstitutionality would clearly be frivolous. See Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 329, 36 S.Ct. 131, 132, 60 L.Ed. 308 (1915) (contentions that Congress had no power to prohibit the importation of films of pugilistic encounters "so devoid o......
-
Martin v. First Nat. Bank of Hattiesbubg
... ... A. (N. S.), 906, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 905); of ... prize fight films ( Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 36 ... S.Ct. 131, 60 L.Ed. 308, Ann. Cas. 1916C, ... ...
-
United States v. 12 200 Ft Reels of Super 8Mm Film 8212
...166, 176 (32 S.Ct. 310, 56 L.Ed. 390). Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 (35 S.Ct. 285, 59 L.Ed. 544).' Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 329, 36 S.Ct. 131, 132, 60 L.Ed. 308 (1915). Claimant relies on the First Amendment and our decision in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, ......
-
U.S. v. Glasser
...United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 126, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 2667, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 329, 36 S.Ct. 131, 132, 60 L.Ed. 308 (1915); Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 492, 24 S.Ct. 349, 353, 48 L.Ed. 525 (1904). In the early days of the Re......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...control). (241.) United States v. 12 200-Foot Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 125-26 (1973); see also Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 328-29 (1915) (upholding a federal statute criminalizing the importation of videos of boxing (242.) See Authors League of Am., Inc. v. Oman, 790 F.2d 2......