Legal Definitions - Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Near v. Minnesota (1931) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that significantly strengthened the protection of freedom of the press and speech under the First Amendment. The Court ruled that "prior restraint"—government censorship or suppression of speech or publication *before* it is released to the public—is almost always unconstitutional.

This means that, with very rare exceptions (such as extreme cases of national security during wartime), the government cannot stop a newspaper, book, or other publication from being distributed or published in advance. If a publication contains false, harmful, or defamatory content, the appropriate legal action is typically to pursue punishment *after* it has been published (for example, through a libel lawsuit), rather than preventing its release beforehand. The Court also used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply this protection against prior restraint to actions by state governments, not just the federal government.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles established by Near v. Minnesota:

• Investigative Journalism: Imagine a local newspaper is preparing to publish an investigative report detailing alleged financial misconduct by a city council member. The council member, upon learning of the impending story, seeks a court order to prevent the newspaper from printing the article, claiming it is false, damaging to their reputation, and will incite public unrest. Under the precedent set by Near v. Minnesota, a court would almost certainly deny this request. The newspaper has the right to publish its story without prior government interference. If the article turns out to be false and defamatory, the council member could sue the newspaper for libel *after* publication, but they cannot stop its release beforehand.

• Controversial Educational Materials: Consider a state board of education that attempts to block the distribution of a new history textbook to public schools because it presents a controversial interpretation of a historical event, which some board members deem "unpatriotic" or "misleading." The board tries to issue an injunction to prevent the publisher from selling or distributing the book within the state. Near v. Minnesota would prevent the state from exercising such prior restraint. While the state might later choose not to adopt the textbook for its curriculum, it cannot legally prevent the publisher from distributing the book to the public or to other educational institutions based on its content before it has even been read.

• Student Publications: A group of students at a public university creates an independent online magazine that frequently publishes articles critical of the university administration's policies, including a recent piece alleging mismanagement of student funds. The university administration, feeling the articles are disruptive and unfairly critical, attempts to shut down the website or censor specific articles before they go live. Citing Near v. Minnesota, the students would likely be protected from this prior restraint. The university cannot prevent the publication of the articles in advance. If any article contains demonstrably false and defamatory statements, the university might have grounds for legal action *after* publication, but it cannot preemptively silence the student journalists.