Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, Postmaster General
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 478 (1962)
Facts
Manual Enterprises, Inc. (plaintiff) published three different magazines consisting mostly of photographs of nude male models. The magazines also provided the models’ names and the photographers’ contact information. Some of these photographers had been arrested and were being prosecuted for sending their own obscene material through the mail. In March 1960, parcels containing copies of the magazines were confiscated by the Alexandria postmaster, pending a determination from superiors at the United States Post Office as to whether the magazines were nonmailable under federal law. The Comstock Act (the act) made it illegal to send obscene, lewd, immoral, indecent, or vile material through the mail. The act also prohibited the advertisement of obscene material. The Post Office Department determined that the publications contained obscene material and barred their shipment. Manual Enterprises filed suit against the United States postmaster general (defendant), contending that the Post Office Department wrongfully interpreted the act and denied shipment of its publications. The Post Office Department argued that its decision was supported by the act’s ban on advertising and dissemination of obscene material. Both the district court and court of appeals sided with the Post Office Department. Manual Enterprises appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harlan, J.)
Concurrence (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
