Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Rowan v. United States Post Office Department

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessPrivacyUnwanted Mailunwanted mailmailbox rulehousehold privacy

Facts

Title III of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967 allowed any householder who received an advertisement that he in his sole discretion believed to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative to request a Postmaster General order directing the sender to stop further mailings and remove the addressee's name from all mailing lists. If the Postmaster General believed the sender violated the order, the statute provided notice, an opportunity to respond, an administrative hearing, and possible enforcement through a federal district court compliance order. Appellants were publishers, distributors, mail order operators, mailing list brokers, and mail service organizations who had received numerous prohibitory orders under the statute. They argued the statute violated the First and Fifth Amendments and was vague and without standards.

Issue

May Congress constitutionally authorize a householder, in his sole discretion, to require a sender to stop all future mailings to that address and delete the householder's name from the sender's mailing lists? Does the statutory procedure violate the First Amendment, due process, or vagueness principles?

Rule

A vendor or mailer has no constitutional right to send unwanted material into another person's home, and Congress may permit the addressee to exercise absolute and final discretion to bar all further mailings from a particular sender. A statute of this kind satisfies due process if the initial prohibitory order carries no immediate sanction and the sender may raise available defenses in later administrative and judicial proceedings before any contempt sanction is imposed. A statute is not unconstitutionally vague when it gives fair warning of the required conduct.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Elena Cruz received a glossy cookware catalog from Desert Willow Merchandising. She filed the required notice stating that, in her sole discretion, the mailing was objectionable and asked for an order blocking future mail from that sender. Desert Willow argues the government may stop only sexually themed mailings, not all of its future catalogs and coupons.

How should a court rule on Desert Willow's First Amendment challenge?

Explanation. The majority construed the statute to permit a prohibitory order against any further mailings from the sender to the designated addressee, not merely similar or sexually themed materials. The Court held that a mailer's right to communicate stops at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee and that Congress may give the householder complete and final discretion to stop further mail from that sender.