Espionage Act (1917)
(1) crime “when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or
convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of
the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and
whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause
or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or
refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United
States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment
service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of
the United States.”
(2) Any mailing that violated the above provision of the act was
illegal, and it also banned any mailings advocating or urging
Treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance to any law of the
United States.
(3) Unlawful for any person in time of war to publish any
information that the president, in his judgment, declared to be
“of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy.”
Sedition Act (1918)
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or
convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation
or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the
success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false
statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in
the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the
recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language
about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the
United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall
willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or
advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest
the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever
shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the
United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States
therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both....
Schenck v. United States (1919)
The most stringent protection of free speech
would not protect a man in falsely shouting
fire in a theatre and causing a panic…
The question in every case is whether the
words used are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right
to prevent.
When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence...that
any person...is using the mails in violation...of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any
post office at which mail is received addressed to such person . . . to return to the
postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter
so addressed.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
The challenged statute forbids the teaching in school of any subject except in
English. . . Evidently the legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the
calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire
knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own.
It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by
inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals
before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and "that the English
language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this
State." It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that
certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in
a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereby hindered from becoming
citizens of the most useful type, and the public safety is imperiled.
That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of
its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain
fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution
extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with
English on the tongue.
Article X
The Members of the League undertake to respect and
preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity
and existing political independence of all Members of the
League.
In the case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or
danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the
means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
ARTICLE 11
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of
the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League,
and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to
safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the
Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith
summon a meeting of the Council.
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring
to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever
affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace
or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
For present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and
of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment
by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties"
protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from
impairment by the States . . .
That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who
abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to
corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace, is not
open to question . . .
And, for yet more imperative reasons, a State may punish utterances
endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its
overthrow by unlawful means. These imperil its own existence as a
constitutional State.
NAACP: “Blots of Shame”
Dyer Anti-Lynching Act (1922)
AN ACT To assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal
protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching.
SEC. 3. That any State or municipal officer charged with the duty or who possesses
the power or authority as such officer to protect the life of any person that may be
put to death by any mob or riotous assemblage, or who has any such person in his
charge as a prisoner, who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to
prevent such person from being so put to death, or any State or municipal officer
charged with the duty of apprehending or prosecuting any person participating in
such mob or riotous assemblage who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all
reasonable efforts to perform his duty in apprehending or prosecuting to final
judgment under the laws of such State all persons so participating except such, if
any, as are to have been held to answer for such participation in any district court of
the United States, as herein provided, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by a fine of
not exceeding $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities,
Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in
whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide
penalties for the violations thereof.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee,
That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals
and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in
part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies
the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach
instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation
of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be
fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five
Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)
The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an
insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of
good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious
breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm
which will come from breaking down recognized standards.
In the maintenance of local self-government, on the one
hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has
been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a
half…
The difference between a tax and a penalty is sometimes
difficult to define, and yet the consequences of the
distinction in the required method of their collection often
are important.
Adkins v Children’s Hospital (1923)
There is, of course, no such thing as absolute freedom of contract. It is subject to a
great variety of restraints. But freedom of contract is, nevertheless, the general
rule, and restraint the exception, and the exercise of legislative authority to abridge
it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances . . .
The standard furnished by the statute for the guidance of the board is so vague as
to be impossible of practical application with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
What is sufficient to supply the necessary cost of living for a woman worker and
maintain her in good health and protect her morals is obviously not a precise or
unvarying sum -- not even approximately so . . .
. . . There are limits to the power, and when these have been passed, it becomes
the plain duty of the courts in the proper exercise of their authority to so declare.
To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is
not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it, for surely the good of
society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against
arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members.
Bluefield Water Works v Public Service Commission (1923)
Rates which are not sufficient to yield a reasonable return on the value
of the property used at the time it is being used to render the service
are unjust, unreasonable and confiscatory, and their enforcement
deprives the public utility company of its property in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment . . .
Investors take into account the result of past operations, especially in
recent years, when determining the terms upon which they will invest in
such an undertaking. Low, uncertain, or irregular income makes for low
prices for the securities of the utility and higher rates of interest to be
demanded by investors. The fact that the company may not insist as a
matter of constitutional right that past losses be made up by rates to be
applied in the present and future tends to weaken credit, and the fact
that the utility is protected against being compelled to serve for
confiscatory rates tends to support it.