State Sedition Laws

State Sedition Laws developed historically from the same apprehensions that divided the United States during and immediately following World War I: fear of foreign influence and concern over the effect of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In an attempt to quell concerns about alleged disloyal activity, a number of states passed laws punishing speech and print that might discourage support for the war effort or undermine the state or federal government.

The first Supreme Court challenge of a state sedition statute came in Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) and involved allegedly disloyal remarks made by an organizer for the Nonpartisan League, a farmers' group seeking political and economic reform. A seven‐justice majority accepted the state defense that such legislation was an example of cooperative federalism and that a state police power, based on the Tenth Amendment, could be exercised to protect the health and welfare of the people in this manner.

In dissent, Chief Justice Edward White rejected the concept of state sedition statutes on grounds that the subject was exclusively within the power of Congress. Dissenter Louis D. Brandeis suggested the application of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect freedom of speech from state encroachment.

State sedition laws encountered few successful court challenges until the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956) accepted the congressional preemption argument and voided the Pennsylvania law. Nevertheless, many state sedition statutes, as well as similar restrictive laws, remained on the books. They were sometimes revived by authorities in later generations to arrest civil rights and antiwar demonstrators.

See also Communism and Cold War; Subversion.

Carol E. Jenson