Cases - 1918 term

Schenck v. United States

Thu, 09 Jan 1919 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Socialist Headquarters

1326 Arch Street Philadelphia PA 19107

Philadelphia, PA 19107

United States

39° 57' 15.5304" N, 75° 9' 44.7732" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

437

Petitioner

Schenck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Argued

Thursday, January 9, 1919

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1919

Facts of the Case

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

Question

Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 1917 Espionage Act; US Const Amend 1

Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Debs v. United States

jgoldman — Mon, 27 Jan 1919 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Nimisilla Park

Mahoning Rd and 12th St Canton OH 44705

Canton, OH 44705

United States

40° 48' 26.28" N, 81° 21' 27.36" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

714

Petitioner

Eugene V. Debs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

249 U.S. 211 (1919)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1919

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1919

Advocates

Seymour Stedman (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

John Lord O'Brian (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

The Espionage Act of 1917 made it a crime to "convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." This had the effect of constraining sedition and political speech. On June 16, 1918, Eugene V. Debs, a leader of the Socialist Party of America, gave a speech in Canton, Ohio protesting involvement in World War I. During the speech, he discussed the rise of socialism and specifically praised individuals who had refused to serve in the military and obstructed military recruiting. For his speech, Debs was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act. At trial, Debs argued the Espionage Act violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment. A federal district court rejected his claim and sentenced Debs to ten years in prison.

Question

Did Debs' conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violate his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court found that Debs' case was clearly similar to Schenck v. United States (1919). In Schenck, the Court had concluded that the arrest of an individual for distributing leaflets encouraging readers to oppose the draft was constitutional. The Court found Debs' sympathy for individuals convicted of opposing the draft and obstructing recruitment analogous to the situation in Schenck. Thus, Debs' conviction was upheld.

Frohwerk v. United States

jgoldman — Mon, 27 Jan 1919 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Missouri Staats Zeitung Newspaper Kansas City, MO

United States

39° 5' 25.5516" N, 94° 35' 1.1184" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

685

Plaintiff in error

Jacob Frohwerk

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff In Error

Defendant in error

United States

Respondent Type

Defendant In Error

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

249 U.S. 204 (1919)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1919

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1919

Advocates

Frans E. Lindquist (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

Joseph D. Shewalter (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

John Lord O'Brian (Sepcial Assistant to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

From July 6 to December 7, 1915, the Missouri Staats Zeiung, a newspaper published in Kansas City, Missouri, issued a series of twelve editorials written by Jacob Frohwerk denouncing involvement by the United States in World War I. Frohwerk was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to "willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States." A trial court found Frohwerk guilty and sentenced him to a fine and imprisonment. On appeal, Frohwerk challenged the statute on the ground that it violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Question

Did Frohwerk's conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court reasserted its conclusion in Schenck v. United States (1919) that the First Amendment does not "give immunity for every possible use of language." After noting that the federal government has a valid interest in protecting the recruitment of members of the armed forces, and that in publishing the articles, Frohwerk engaged in such a conspiracy, the Court concluded that Frohwerk's conviction was legal. The Court dismissed the argument that Frohwerk's intention was never to obstruct recruitment, noting that "conspiracy to obstruct recruiting would be criminal even if no means were agreed upon specifically by which to accomplish the intent."