MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
Term: 1970­1979 1973
Location: The Miami Herald
Facts of the Case Pat Tornillo was Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and a
candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in Dade County, Florida. The
Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing Tornillo and his candidacy. He
demanded that the Herald publish his responses to the editorials. When the Herald
refused, Tornillo sued in Dade County Circuit Court under Florida Statute Section
104.38, which granted political candidates criticized by any newspaper the right to
have their responses to the criticisms published. The Herald challenged the statute
as a violation of the free press clause of the First Amendment. The Circuit Court
ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed
this decision.
Like Sign Up to see what your friends
like.
Case Basics
Docket No. 73­797
Appellee Miami Herald Publishing Co.
Appellant Pat Tornillo
Decided By Burger Court (1972­1975)
Opinion 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
Question Did Florida Statute Section 104.38, the "right to reply" statute, violate the free press
clause of the First Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Argued Wednesday, April 17, 1974
Conclusion Advocates
Decision: 9 votes for Miami Herald Publishing Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Decided Tuesday, June 25, 1974
Daniel P. S. Paul
(argued the cause for the appellant)
Jerome A. Barron
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and
(argued the cause for the appellee)
held that Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the
Tags
First Amendment. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court
recognized the risks posed to the "true marketplace of ideas" by media consolidation
and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry. However, even in that context, "press
responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and…cannot be legislated." The
Miscellaneous
statute was an "intrusion into the function of editors," and imposed "a penalty on the
basis of the content." Chief Justice Burger relied on New York Times v. Sullivan in
that the "right to reply" statute "limits the variety of public debate," and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice William J.
Brennan, Jr. authored a concurring statement. Justice Byron R. White authored a concurring opinion.
First
Amendment
Burger
Douglas
Brennan
Stewart
White
Marshall
Blackmun
Powell
Rehnquist
Cite this Page
MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. v. TORNILLO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago­Kent College of Law.
10 November 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970­1979/1973/1973_73_797/>.
© 2005­2011 Oyez, Inc.