The War On News

A record of government actions against journalism and fact-based reporting, from the first press laws to today

Incident

United States: Louisiana taxes large newspapers' advertising revenue; the tax is struck down in Grosjean v. American Press Co.

United StatesRSF 2026 rank: 64th of 180

Engraving of an empty press briefing room with a lectern and rows of chairs

Louisiana taxed the gross receipts that businesses earned from advertising in newspapers with circulations above 20,000 copies a week, a threshold that caught the state's largest papers. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in 1936 that the tax operated as a restraint on advertising revenue and circulation, and struck it down.1234

What happened

The Louisiana Legislature passed Act No. 23 on July 12, 1934, taxing 2 percent of the gross receipts that businesses earned from placing advertisements in any newspaper, magazine or periodical with a circulation of more than 20,000 copies a week. The tax was adopted under the influence of United States Senator Huey Long, who had maintained control over the state legislature after his election to the Senate in 1932. Nine publishers whose papers met the circulation threshold sued to stop the tax, and their case reached the Supreme Court of the United States as Grosjean v. American Press Co. On February 10, 1936, the Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice George Sutherland, that the tax violated the free press and due process protections that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution carries into state law. Sutherland wrote that the tax operated as a restraint in two ways, cutting the revenue newspapers earned from advertising and tending to restrict their circulation, and that its form, based on circulation rather than the volume of advertisements, was itself suspicious. The Court did not question Louisiana's general power to tax newspapers like other businesses; it found only that this particular tax was not an ordinary one.123564

What reason was given

Stated justification

Louisiana did not argue in court that newspaper owners were exempt from ordinary business taxes; the tax was defended as a routine exercise of the state's general taxing power rather than a measure aimed at the press.5

What changed for reporting

The tax cut into the revenue newspapers earned from advertising and tended to restrict their circulation, according to the Supreme Court's opinion.123564

Timeline

1934

12 July 1934
United States: Louisiana taxes large newspapers' advertising revenue; the tax is struck down in Grosjean v. American Press Co.

Who acted

NameRole in this incidentOffice at the time
George SutherlandruledAssociate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
Huey P. LongotherUnited States Senator from Louisiana

Sources

  1. Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), 1936-02-10, primary. Source record
  2. Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936)Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), reporting. Source record

Claims and evidence

Each numbered claim quotes the source it rests on.

  1. The Louisiana Legislature enacted the tax through Act No. 23 on July 12, 1934.the act of the Legislature of Louisiana known as Act No. 23, passed and approved July 12, 1934Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), 1936-02-10.Claim 893, checked 2026-09-26.
  2. Justice George Sutherland's opinion held that the tax operated as a restraint in two ways, cutting revenue from advertising and tending to restrict circulation.It thus operates as a restraint in a double sense. First, its effect is to curtail the amount of revenue realized from advertising; and, second, its direct tendency is to restrict circulation.Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), 1936-02-10.Claim 894, checked 2026-09-26.
  3. Sutherland found the tax's form itself suspicious because it was measured by the extent of a newspaper's circulation rather than by the volume of its advertising.The form in which the tax is imposed is in itself suspicious. It is not measured or limited by the volume of advertisements.Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), 1936-02-10.Claim 895, checked 2026-09-26.
  4. The tax was adopted in 1934 under the influence of United States Senator Huey Long, who had controlled the Louisiana legislature since his election to the Senate in 1932.under the influence of Sen. Huey Long, a former governor who maintained control over the legislature after being elected as a U.S. senator in 1932Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936).Claim 898, checked 2026-09-26.
  5. The Supreme Court noted that no one suggested newspaper owners were immune from ordinary forms of taxation, distinguishing this tax from a routine business tax.the owners of newspapers are immune from any of the ordinary forms of taxation for support of the governmentGrosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), 1936-02-10.Claim 896, checked 2026-09-26.
  6. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice George Sutherland classified the Louisiana tax as a license tax and struck it down.Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice George Sutherland classified the tax as a “license tax.”Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936).Claim 897, checked 2026-09-26.