Whitney v. California

Thu, 18 Mar 1926 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Socialist Convention at Loring Hall

11th and Clay Street Oakland CA 94607

Oakland, CA 94607

United States

37° 48' 11.556" N, 122° 16' 29.6076" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Whitney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Decided By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Opinion

274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Argued

Thursday, March 18, 1926

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1927

Facts of the Case

Charlotte Anita Whitney, a member of the Communist Labor Party of California, was prosecuted under that state's Criminal Syndicalism Act. The Act prohibited advocating, teaching, or aiding the commission of a crime, including "terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership. . .or effecting any political change."

Question

Did the Criminal Syndicalism Act violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court sustained Whitney's conviction and held that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The Court found that the Act violated neither the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause, and that freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was not an absolute right. The Court argued "that a State. . .may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances. . .tending to. . .endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means" and was not open to question. The decision is most notable for the concurring opinion written by Justice Brandeis, in which he argued that only clear, present, and imminent threats of "serious evils" could justify suppression of speech.

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

jgoldman — Wed, 27 Jan 1926 13:00:00 +0000

Location

68 Acres of Land

20001 Euclid Ave Euclid OH 44117

Euclid, OH 44117

United States

41° 33' 57.6" N, 81° 32' 30.84" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Village of Euclid, Ohio

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Ambler Realty Company

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Decided By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Opinion

272 U.S. 365 (1926)

Argued

Wednesday, January 27, 1926

Reargued:

Friday, October 12, 1026

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1926

Advocates

James Metzenbaum (argued the cause for the appellants)

Newton D. Baker (argued the cause for the appellee)

Robert M. Morgan (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

The Ambler Realty Company owned 68 acres of land in the village of Euclid, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland. On November 13, 1922, the village council passed a zoning ordinance dividing the village into several districts. The ordinance defined the use and size of buildings permissible in each district. Ambler Realty's land spanned multiple districts, and the company was therefore significantly restricted in the types of buildings it could construct on the land. Ambler Realty filed suit against the village, claiming the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections of liberty and property described in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. A federal district court agreed and issued an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance.

Question

Did the village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violate Ambler Realty's rights to liberty and property under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Court concluded that the speculative damages claimed by Ambler Realty were insufficient to invalidate an otherwise valid exercise of the village's police power. Sutherland's opinion, after noting that several lower courts had upheld zoning laws, and that numerous investigations and studies had found the laws beneficial, stated that such facts "are sufficiently cogent to preclude us from saying…that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Given the law's valid basis, the Court found that, although its enforcement may ultimately cause some degree of hardship to the company, it could not overturn the ordinance based solely on "the broad ground that the mere existence and threatened enforcement of the ordinance, by materially and adversely affecting values and curtailing the opportunities of the market, constitute a present and irreparable injury."

Cases - 1925 term

Whitney v. California

Location

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Location