Grosjean v. American Press Co
Grosjean v. American Press Co. is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the intersection of taxation and freedom of the press. The case emerged in the context of political tension in Louisiana, where a special license tax was imposed on larger newspapers, specifically targeting those critical of Senator Huey Long. Out of the 163 newspapers in the state, only 13 were affected, with 12 of them having opposed Long's policies. The Supreme Court, led by Justice George Sutherland, ruled that this tax was a calculated effort to suppress the dissemination of information regarding public affairs. The ruling affirmed that fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment apply to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing the prohibition of prior restraint on publication and circulation. Sutherland's opinion clarified that while newspapers are not exempt from general taxation, targeted taxes designed to stifle opposition would not be tolerated. This case is pivotal in understanding the legal protections afforded to the press and the implications of governmental actions that can undermine those protections.
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
Date: February 10, 1936
Citation: 297 U.S. 233
Issue: Freedom of the press
Significance: The Supreme Court held that a special tax on large newspapers was invalid because it abridged the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
When Louisiana’s largest newspapers were critical of Senator Huey Long, his supporters in the legislature imposed a special license tax on all newspapers with more than twenty thousand subscribers. The tax applied to only 13 of the 163 newspapers in the state, and 12 of the 13 had actively opposed Long’s policies. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Justice George Sutherland concluded that the tax was “a deliberate and calculated device” aimed at limiting the circulation of information about public affairs. Sutherland argued that “certain fundamental rights safeguarded in the first eight amendments” were applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Framers of the First Amendment had wanted to prevent all forms of prior restraint on either publication or circulation, including restraints through taxation.
Sutherland’s opinion observed that newspapers were not immune from nondiscriminatory general taxation. The Court emphasized this principle in Minnesota Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983).