McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Andrew L. Sutter (Argued the cause for the respondent)
David A. Goldberger (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
93-986
Petitioner: 
McIntyre
Respondent: 
Ohio Elections Commission
Opinion: 
514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission , 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_986)
Facts of the Case: 

On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting in Ohio expressing her opposition to a proposed school tax levy. Though they were independently produced, she signed them as the views of "Concerned Parents and Tax Payers." Mrs. McIntyre was subsequently fined $100 for violating Section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Elections Commission Code prohibiting the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature.

Question: 

Does the prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridge freedom of speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion: 

Yes. The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment and "extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes." When a law burdens such anonymous speech, the Court applies "exacting scrutiny," upholding the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for McIntyre, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Seniority

Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens