Connection lost
Server error
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a New York law allowing films to be banned as “sacrilegious.” It held that motion pictures are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and that the term “sacrilegious” is an unconstitutionally vague standard for censorship.
Legal Significance: This landmark case extended First Amendment protection to motion pictures for the first time, overturning prior precedent. It established that a state cannot engage in prior restraint of expression based on a vague, content-based standard like “sacrilegious.”
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Joseph Burstyn, Inc., a film distributor, was granted a license by the New York State Education Department to exhibit the Italian film “The Miracle.” Following public protests, the New York State Board of Regents reviewed the film and determined it was “sacrilegious.” A New York statute prohibited the exhibition of any motion picture without a license and authorized the denial of a license for films deemed, among other things, “sacrilegious.” Acting under this statute, the Regents ordered the rescission of the film’s license, effectively banning its exhibition. Burstyn challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing it was a prior restraint on speech and that the term “sacrilegious” was impermissibly vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the ban, defining “sacrilegious” as treating religion with “contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state statute that permits the banning of a motion picture on the ground that it is “sacrilegious” impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Yes. The New York statute is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididun
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state statute that permits the banning of a motion picture on the ground that it is “sacrilegious” impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational First Amendment decision that brought motion pictures Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut e
Legal Rule
Expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two steps. First, it established that motion Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt molli
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Motion pictures are a form of expression protected by the First