Citation network
Lamont Vs. Postmaster General
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1965
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
General - 381 U.S. 301 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. As stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. BurlesonSearch
-
Page 381 U. S. 306 We struck down in Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
A registration requirement imposed on a labor union organizer before making a speech met the same fate in Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 516 . A municipal licensing system for those distributing literature was held invalid in Lovell v. CitySearch
-
of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 . We recently reviewed in Harman v. ForsseniusSearch
-
the public, so here federal agencies regulate the flow of mail. We do not have here, any more than we had in Hannegan v. EsquireSearch
-
debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
Together with No. 848, Fixa, Postmaster, San Francisco, et al. v. HeilbergSearch
-
Pike v. WalkerSearch
-
would then have to establish their standing to vindicate the senders' constitutional rights, cf. Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
protection for political propaganda prepared and printed abroad by or on behalf of a foreign government, cf. Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Martin v. CitySearch
-
equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. See, e.g., Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
not intended to control the content of speech, but only incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise, see Zemel v. RuskSearch
-
against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government. See, e.g., Freedman v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 513 . The registration requirement which was struck down in Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
an intrusion on First Amendment rights on the ground that the intrusion is only a minor one. As the Court said in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
has the duty to confine itself to the least intrusive regulations which are adequate for the purpose. Cf. Butler v. MichiganSearch
-
subsidy or a privilege, it must do so by means and on terms which do not endanger First Amendment rights. Cf. Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. BurlesonSearch
-
Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
Lovell v. CitySearch
-
Hannegan v. EsquireSearch
-
the First Amendment. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Freedman v. MarylandSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Butler v. MichiganSearch
-
Cf. Speiser v. RandallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial