Why did the US Supreme Court rule against Schenck in Schenck v. US?

Answer 1

Background

Charles T. Schenck, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, was convicted under the recently enacted Espionage Act of 1917 of attempting to interfere with the operation of the United States Armed Forces by urging men to resist the draft.

Schenck, in his capacity as an official of the Socialist Party, was in charge of the Socialist headquarters where the Executive Committee met. According to meeting minutes found on the premises, the committee had issued a resolution on August 13, 1917 that 15,000 leaflets should be printed and distributed to men who had been drafted or were eligible for the draft.

Schenck undertook responsibility for printing and mailing the circulars, while his co-defendant, Dr. Elizabeth Baer (named in the full caption), had recorded the meeting minutes.

Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act of 1917 was constitutional, and that Schenck's actions were a clear violation of the Act's provisions.

Schenck was charged with three counts under the statute:

1. Causing and attempting to cause insurrection in order to obstruct military recruitment and enlistment
2. Conspiracy to commit and offense against the United States
3. Unlawful use of the mail to distribute anti-draft literature

None of the charges required the defendant to be successful in his goal; an attempt to cause insurrection; conspiracy; and unlawful use of the mail were sufficient grounds for a conviction. The prosecution successfully convinced a trial jury that Schenck had committed those actions; therefore, the only question before the Court was not one of Schenck's guilt or innocence, but whether the law under which he was convicted created an unconstitutional violation of the defendant's First Amendment right of free speech.

In the opinion of the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote:

"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

In the justices' opinion, the federal government had a right to create exceptions to the Free Speech Clause when exercising that right had the potential ("clear and present danger") to interfere with a legitimate government interest and jeopardize national security.

Case Citation:

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.