Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Talley v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1960 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of the PressAnonymous Speechanonymous speechhandbillsleaflets

Facts

Los Angeles Municipal Code § 28.06 prohibited distribution of any handbill in any place under any circumstances unless the cover or face printed the name and address of the person who printed, wrote, compiled, or manufactured it and the person who caused it to be distributed. Petitioner distributed handbills in Los Angeles that identified only "National Consumers Mobilization, Box 6533, Los Angeles 55, Calif., PLeasant 9-1576." The handbills urged readers to support a boycott of certain merchants and businessmen for carrying products of manufacturers that allegedly did not offer equal employment opportunities to Negroes, Mexicans, and Orientals, and included a membership sign-up blank. The municipal court held the printed information did not satisfy the ordinance, convicted petitioner, and fined him $10.

Issue

Whether a Los Angeles ordinance that broadly forbids distribution of any handbill anywhere unless it contains the names and addresses of those who prepared, distributed, or sponsored it abridges the freedom of speech and of the press secured against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

A law that broadly bars distribution of handbills unless the handbill bears identifying names and addresses of those responsible for it is unconstitutional on its face when it is not limited to particular unprotected or otherwise regulable categories, because compelled identification tends to restrict the distribution of information and thereby freedom of expression.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The city council in Toledo, Ohio, enacts an ordinance making it unlawful to hand out any flyer, leaflet, card, or pamphlet anywhere in the city unless the document lists the full name and street address of the person who wrote it and the person who arranged for its distribution. Nina Ortiz is fined after distributing unsigned leaflets urging residents to oppose a proposed zoning change.

If Nina challenges the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, what is the strongest argument for invalidating it?

Explanation. The majority held facially invalid a sweeping ordinance that prohibited distribution of any handbill in any place under any circumstances unless it bore identifying names and addresses. The defect is the breadth of the identification requirement itself, which tends to restrict the distribution of information and thus freedom of expression. The rule does not depend on whether the leaflet concerns a local issue or on proof of truth.