Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractstatuteappealregulation
contractstatuteregulation

Related Cases

U.S. ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343
View Case »
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9834
View Case »
Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 13 Tex.Bankr.Ct.Rep. 1
View Case »
Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1997-2 Trade Cases P 71,962, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 188
View Case »
In re Marriage of Kile and Kendall, 186 Wash.App. 864, 347 P.3d 894
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476, 60 USLW 4029, 19 Media L. Rep. 1609

Facts

The case arose when Simon & Schuster entered into a contract with Henry Hill, an admitted organized crime figure, for a book about his life. The New York State Crime Victims Board determined that this contract violated the 'Son of Sam' law, which required that any income from works describing a crime be turned over to the Board for the benefit of crime victims. Simon & Schuster sued, claiming the law infringed on their First Amendment rights. The District Court upheld the law, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

The case arose when Simon & Schuster entered into a contract with Henry Hill, an admitted organized crime figure, for a book about his life.

Issue

Does New York's 'Son of Sam' statute, which requires that income from works describing a crime be deposited in an escrow account for victims, violate the First Amendment?

Does New York's 'Son of Sam' statute, which requires that income from works describing a crime be deposited in an escrow account for victims, violate the First Amendment?

Rule

A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech. The government must show that such regulation serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.

A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech.

Analysis

The Court determined that the 'Son of Sam' law imposes a financial disincentive specifically on speech related to crime, which is a content-based regulation. The law was found to be overinclusive, applying to any work that touches on the author's crime, thus failing to narrowly tailor the state's interest in compensating victims. The Court emphasized that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that victims are compensated, but it does not have a compelling interest in limiting that compensation to the proceeds of a criminal's storytelling.

The Court determined that the 'Son of Sam' law imposes a financial disincentive specifically on speech related to crime, which is a content-based regulation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the 'Son of Sam' law is inconsistent with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced as it stands.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the 'Son of Sam' law is inconsistent with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced as it stands.

Who won?

Simon & Schuster prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the 'Son of Sam' law imposed unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

Simon & Schuster prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the 'Son of Sam' law imposed unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

You must be