Schenck v. United States et al. (1919)

by Tim Desmond

Table of Contents

• Background on the case

• How it Reached the Supreme Court

• Constitutional Question

• Supreme Court Ruling

Background

Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America. Elizabeth Baer was the Socialist Party recording secretary. As part of what the Socialist Party did Charles was the one responsible for the material he sent to potential draftees during World War I. He printed, distributed and mailed these messages. This included about 15,000 leaflets encouraging soldiers to take a stand against the draft. Statements like “Assert your rights”, or “Do not submit to intimidation.”

Reaching the Supreme Court

Charles Schenck Elizabeth Baer were first indicted and found guilty in US Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There were three charges: Conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and with obstructing the recruitment and enlistment service of the US; conspiracy to commit an illegal act against the US by using the mails to transmit prohibited material; and the unlawful use of mail.

Charles appealed to the Supreme Court (bypassing the 3rd circuit).

Constitutional Question

Was Charles Schenck’s First Amendment rights violated?• No. Insubordination promotion is not a protected speech. The speech was seen as a kin to

shouting fire in a crowded theater. The speech impedes the soldiers to go against the US war effort in a time of war. It also puts other soldiers at risk, and causes unnecessary panic.

Supreme Court Ruling (Schneck 0 - 9 US)

Landmark CaseSet the precedent that the first amendment is excepted in two ways.

• Public Safety false statements.

• Certain wartime speech is not protected when hindering that war effort. (doesn’t mean protesting)

Supreme Court Ruling (Schneck 0 - 9 US)

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court reviewed the request upon appeal to them from US Federal district court and presumably at least 4 justices agreed to hear the case.

Amicus Curiae

Schneck argues that by charging him on the Espionage Act his right to free speech is being infringed.

The US asserts that no 1st amendment interpretation allows hindrance of the war effort.

Supreme Court Ruling (Schneck 0 - 9 US)

Majority Opinion (Unanimous) Possible Dissenting OpinionThe unanimous decision was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The ruling he gave said that, while in a time of war restrictions may be more strict. It is not against free speech to protect the safety of soldiers.

A possible dissent argument may take shape by arguing that there were no damages to any

branch of the military. Schneck set out to inform draftees of a

potential route for avoiding war.