From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Golden v. Zwickler
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 103, 89 S. Ct. 956, 22 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1969)
In 1964 Sanford Zwickler (defendant) anonymously distributed a flyer criticizing a congressman running for reelection for not supporting proposed amendments to the 1964 Foreign Aid bill. Zwickler was convicted in state court of violating New York Penal Law § 781-b, which made it a crime for a person to circulate anonymous literature in connection with an election. Zwickler’s conviction was reversed, and the New York Court of Appeals held that the constitutionality of § 781-b needed to be decided. Zwickler filed a lawsuit in federal district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 781-b was an unconstitutional violation of his freedom of speech. In his complaint, Zwickler explained that he believed that the congressman would run for reelection again and stated that when the congressman did run for reelection, he would distribute anonymous fliers again. The federal district court granted a declaratory judgment. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the district court erred by failing to determine whether Zwickler had satisfied the prerequisites necessary for declaratory judgment and remanded the case to the district court. While the litigation was pending, the congressman left office and became a justice on the New York Supreme Court. On remand, the district court conducted a short hearing and determined, without taking any testimony on the issue, that the facts alleged in Zwickler’s complaint satisfied the prerequisites for declaratory judgment. The district court explained that even though the congressman was no longer in public office and was unlikely to run for office again, Zwickler’s case was not moot when he initiated it. The district court further explained that Zwickler had a continued interest in knowing whether § 781-b was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari again to determine whether Zwickler had satisfied the prerequisites for declaratory judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.