Notable Items:

These cases [Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936), and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960)] stand not for the proposition that legislative motive is a proper basis for declaring a statute unconstitutional, but that the inevitable effect of a statute on its face may render it unconstitutional. [What does this mean for Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) and for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) O'Brien Standard:
... we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: David Paul O'Brien
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: UnitedStates-OBrien (1968)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent's Claim(s):

O'Brien nonetheless argues that
  1. the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional in its application to him, and
  2. is unconstitutional as enacted because what he calls the "purpose" of Congress was "to suppress freedom of speech."

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: The 1965 Amendment to 50 U.S.C.App. § 462(b)(3) is constitutional as applied in this case.
Disposition: 376 F.2d 538, vacated; judgment and sentence of District Court reinstated.

Material Facts:

Procedural History:


Warren Majority Opinion

Harlan Concurrance (??)

Douglas Dissent (??)

Full Recounting of Facts

Warren Majority Full Argument