Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. (343 U.S. 495)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 26, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 343 U.S. 495 · 72 S. Ct. 777
- Docket
- No. 522
- Argued
- April 24, 1952
- Decided
- May 26, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1951
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Clark
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
- Precedent
- This decision overruled or formally altered earlier precedent
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Burton (joined a concurrence), Justice Douglas, Justice Black
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Reed (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue here is the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of a New York statute which permits the banning of motion picture films on the ground that they are “sacrilegious.” That statute makes it unlawful “to exhibit, or to sell, lease or lend for exhibition at any place of amusement for pay or in connection with any business in the state of New York, any motion picture film or reel [with specified exceptions not relevant here], unless there is at the time in full force and effect a valid license or permit therefor of the education department . ...” The statute further provides: “The director of the [motion picture] division [of the education department] or, when authorized by the regents, the officers of a local office or bureau shall cause to be promptly examined every motion picture film submitted to them as herein required, and unless such film or a part thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime, shall issue a license therefor. If such director or, when so authorized, such officer shall not license any film submitted, he shall furnish to the applicant therefor a written report of the reasons for his refusal and a description of each rejected part of a film not rejected in toto.”…
Excerpt of a 82,802-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.