Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Blount v. Rizzi — Opinion of the Court

One Senate Report expressed misgivings when the Postmaster General had originally sought the impounding power: 'The committee recognizes that even in its present form the bill gives the Postmaster General extraordinary and summary powers to impose a substantial penalty by impounding a person's mail for up to 20 days in advance of any hearing or any review by the courts. Such power is directly contrary to the letter and spirit of normal due process, as exemplified by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires a hearing before any penalty may be imposed.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Blount v. Rizzi — Opinion of the Court

Appellants suggest that we avoid the constitutional question raised by the failure of § 4006 to provide that the Government seek a prompt judicial determination by construing that section to deny the administrative order any effect whatever, if judicial review is sought by the distributor, until the completion of that review. Apart from the fact that this suggestion neither requires that the appellants initiate judicial proceedings, nor provides for a prompt judicial determination, it is for Congress, not this Court, to rewrite the statute.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Blount v. Rizzi — Opinion of the Court

Second, the district court is required to grant the relief sought by the Postmaster General upon a showing merely of 'probable cause' to believe § 4006 is being violated. We agree with the three-judge court in Book Bin that to satisfy the demand of the First Amendment 'it is vital that prompt judicial review on the issue of obscenity-rather than merely probable cause-be assured on the Government's initiative before the severe restrictions in §§ 4006, 4007, are invoked.' 306 F.Supp., at 1028.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature