Rowan v. United States Post Office Department Landmark Supreme Court Case

The Rowan v. United States Post Office Department case was a landmark Supreme Court decision that had significant implications for the First Amendment rights of individuals. It was a pivotal moment in the history of free speech.

The case centered around the right of individuals to refuse unwanted mail, specifically advertisements. The Rowan family, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, were being bombarded with unwanted publications and literature from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They asked the Post Office to stop delivering these materials, but their request was denied.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Rowan family, affirming their right to refuse unwanted mail and protecting their freedom of speech.

The case of Rowan v. United States Post Office Department was decided in a lower court, where the judge found that a specific statute was constitutional when interpreted to prohibit certain types of advertisements.

The statute in question, § 4009, only explicitly applies to pandering advertisements that offer for sale matter believed to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative by the addressee.

A key aspect of the case is that a recipient can obtain a Prohibitory Order prohibiting mail from a given sender, based on a single mailing that need not be erotic or sexually provocative.

The only requirement for a mailing to be considered for a Prohibitory Order is that it must be possible to construe the mail as an offer to sell goods or services.

In the landmark case of Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, the court's involvement played a crucial role in shaping the outcome.

The case began with Rowan's refusal to accept a package containing a book by a communist author, which he believed would be used for subversive purposes. The post office attempted to deliver the package, but Rowan's resistance led to his arrest and prosecution.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the post office, but not without considering the constitutional implications of the case.