Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lovell v. City of Griffin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of the PressFourteenth Amendmentprior restraintlicensingcensorshipfreedom of the press

Facts

A Griffin, Georgia ordinance made it a punishable nuisance to distribute by hand or otherwise any circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Alma Lovell distributed a pamphlet and a magazine in the nature of religious tracts concerning the "Kingdom of Jehovah" without applying for a permit. She challenged the ordinance as violating the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging freedom of the press and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Court addressed the freedom of speech and press question as adequately presented.

Issue

May a city, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, require prior written permission from a city manager before any person may distribute literature of any kind within the city? More specifically, does such a licensing ordinance unconstitutionally abridge freedom of the press by subjecting distribution to prior license and censorship?

Rule

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights protected from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. An ordinance that broadly prohibits the distribution of literature of any kind, at any time, place, or manner, unless the distributor first obtains official permission, is facially invalid because it subjects the press to license and censorship; the liberty of the press includes pamphlets and leaflets, and liberty to circulate is as essential as liberty to publish.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Savannah, Georgia, Naomi Pierce stands on a public sidewalk handing out free pamphlets criticizing local redevelopment plans. A city ordinance makes it unlawful to distribute any circulars, booklets, advertisements, or other literature anywhere in the city unless the distributor first obtains written approval from the city administrator.

If Naomi is prosecuted for distributing pamphlets without approval, what is the strongest constitutional argument against the ordinance?

Explanation. The majority held that a municipal ordinance requiring prior written permission before distributing literature of any kind is facially invalid. Its vice is not merely regulation, but a sweeping system of prior license and censorship. The liberty of the press includes pamphlets and leaflets, and a city cannot broadly condition their circulation on official approval.