Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Meese v. Keene

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentStandingForeign Agents Registration ActFirst Amendmentstandingreputational injuryredressability

Facts

The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires agents of foreign principals to register and, when disseminating materials defined by the Act as "political propaganda," to file copies and dissemination reports and provide disclosure statements identifying the foreign principal and agent. Barry Keene, a California state senator and attorney, wanted to exhibit three Canadian films distributed by the National Film Board of Canada, which the Department of Justice had classified as "political propaganda" under the Act. Keene alleged that exhibiting films bearing that statutory characterization would harm his personal, political, and professional reputation and impair his reelection prospects and legal practice. The statutory disclosure form for films did not itself use the phrase "political propaganda."

Issue

Whether Keene had standing to challenge the Act's use of the term "political propaganda," and whether Congress violated the First Amendment by using that term as the statutory name for expressive materials subject to the Act's disclosure and reporting requirements.

Rule

A First Amendment plaintiff has standing when he shows more than a subjective chill and demonstrates a specific, objective threat of injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged government action and likely to be at least partially redressed by favorable relief. The First Amendment is not violated by Congress' use of a statutorily defined, neutral term to identify materials subject to disclosure requirements where the statute neither prohibits, censors, detains, nor restrains dissemination, but instead requires disclosure to help the public evaluate the source and import of the material.

🔒

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.

Nina Solis, a city council member in Tucson, plans to host a public screening of documentaries distributed by an office registered as an agent of a foreign government. A federal disclosure law classifies the films within a statutorily defined category and requires source-identifying disclosures by the foreign agent, but does not bar Nina from showing the films. Nina sues, alleging only that the government's classification makes her feel uneasy and may chill her willingness to host the event.

Does Nina most likely have Article III standing?

Explanation. Standing requires more than a subjective chill. The plaintiff must show a specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. Here, Nina alleges only unease and a generalized chilling effect, not concrete reputational, professional, political, or other palpable injury. The majority made clear that direct restraint is not required for standing, but some distinct and palpable injury still is.