Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-263 Page: 3 of 5
5 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page 3 (JM-263)
by Star Tribune, in which the Court had invali-
dated ordinances imposing a flat license tax on
the sale of religious literature. See 341 U.S.
at, 649-650 (Blacc, J., dissenting) T'Since this
decision cannot be reconciled with the Jones,
Murdock and Martin v. Struthers cases, it seems to
me that good judicial practice calls for their
forthright overruLing. ') Whatever the value of
those cases as authority after Breard, we think
them distinguishable from a generally applicable
sales tax. In each of those cases, the local
government imposeJ a flat tax, unrelated to the
receipts or income of the speaker or to the
expenses of administering a valid regulatory
scheme, as a condition of the right to speak. By
imposing the tax as a condition of engaging in
protected activity , the defendants in those cases
imposed a form of prior restraint on speech,
rendering the tax highly susceptible to
constitutional challenge. Follett, supra, at
576-578; Murdock, :mupra, at 112, 113-114; Jones v.
Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 609, 611 (1942) (Stone,
C.J., dissenting), reasoning approved on rehearing
in 319 U.S. 103 (L943); see Crosjean v. American
Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S., at 249; see generally
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697
(1931). In that regard, the cases cited by Star
Tribune do not resemble a generally applicable
sales tax. Indeed, our cases have consistently
recognized that nondiscriminatory taxes on the
receipts or income of newspapers would be
permissible, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 683
(dictum); Grosjeau v. American Press Co., Inc.,
supra, at 250 'dictum); f. Follett, supra, at
578 (preacher subject to taxes on income or
property) (dictun); Murdock, supra, at 112 (same)
(dictum). (Emphasis added).
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jr. 9.
The First Amendment toes not prohibit all regulation of the
press; there is no question that the states or the federal government
can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations
without violating the Conotitution. As the court in Grosjean v.
American Press Co., Inc., Itrpra, declared:
It is not intended by anything we have said to
suggest that the owners of newspapers are immune
from any of the ordinary forms of taxation for
support of the government.p. 1173
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-263, text, December 21, 1984; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth272703/m1/3/: accessed June 9, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.