The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 15, 1991
Decision: Tuesday, December 10, 1991
Issues: First Amendment, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Ronald S. Rauchberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Howard L. Zwickel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. The Board was to deposit the money into escrow accounts which victims could later claim through civil suits. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.

Question

Did the Son of Sam law violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court concluded that "New York has singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income." This discrimination could only be justified if the state could show "that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end" (Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 231 (1987)). The Board failed to explain why victims' compensation had to come from the criminals' storytelling rather than other assets.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Simon & Schuster, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Did not participate
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote a special concurrence
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a special concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Simon & Schuster v. NY Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1059/>
(last visited ).