Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 Caitlyn Scott

Background Information (Constitutional Issue) Charles T. Schenck General Secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party (1917-1919) Opposition against the implementation of the military draft Printed approx. 15,000 pamphlets urging the American people to oppose the military draft Violation against the Espionage Act (1917) Illegal to “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies…” (https://www.britannica.com/event/Schenck-v-United-States)

Parties Involved Charles T. Schenck General Secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party (1917-1919) United States Country in North America Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Schenck's conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment

Time and Day Took place; New York City (1919) During the middle of World War I Supreme Court Ruling; March 3, 1919

Leading to Case Implementation of the Espionage Act of 1917 Middle of WWI Argument from the government to apply for the draft to help with the war efforts against the Central Powers (Germany, Italy, and Ottomans)

Courts State Court/Federal Court- NYC Supreme Court- Washington D.C.

Final Conviction/Reason The Court's unanimous (9-0) decision was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In it, the Court upheld Schenck's conviction, declaring the Espionage Act a reasonable and acceptable limitation on speech in time of war. The Schenck case stands as the first significant exploration of the limits of 1st Amendment free speech provisions by the Supreme Court. Its clarifications on the meaning of free speech have been modified, rewritten, and extended over the years. Flowing directly from this case, two schools of legal thought on the protections of the Bill of Rights emerged. One “absolutist“ group felt that the Constitution meant to tolerate no interference by government with the people's freedoms, “absolutely none.“ More widely held was the “balancing doctrine,“ which suggested that the right of the people to be left alone by a government had to be “balanced“ against “compelling public necessity.“ https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/cases/schenck-v-united-states- 1919

Viewpoints For Schenck: The Espionage Act was unconstitutional. Schenck and the Socialist party were persecuted for opposing what they felt was an “immoral war.“ The 1st Amendment was specifically included in the Constitution to protect political speech, and to prevent a “tyranny of the majority.“ The 1st Amendment protections would be meaningless if Congress could choose where and when citizen's rights may be diminished. For the United States: A nation at war is justified in taking steps to insure the success of its effort to defend itself. The case involves congressional draft policy, not the 1st Amendment. Statements critical of the government cannot be tolerated in a crisis. The nation cannot allow an effort to deprive the armies of necessary soldiers. The actions and words of the Socialist party were a danger to the nation. The Espionage and Sedition acts, by contrast, were legitimate and appropriate in a time of war. https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/cases/schenck-v-united-states-1919

Majority Opinion 49 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense.

Personal Opinion Conviction was necessary, First Amendment didn’t work in his favor. Also the more people that could help during the time period (WWI) was essential to the United States and its’ allies, if people began to boycott the draft, Allies may not have been strong.

Work Cited https://www.britannica.com/event/Schenck-v-United-States https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/cases/schenck-v-united- states-1919 https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schenck.html