Thomas E. Latimer - Legal Career and Near V. Minnesota

Legal Career and Near V. Minnesota

Latimer studied law at the University of Minnesota. It was there that he met his second wife, Elsie Henry. They graduated law school, took the bar exam together, and then opened the law firm of Latimer & Latimer. They apparently did not have any children. Elsie would die five years before Thomas in 1932.

By the 1920s Latimer was "a prominent Minneapolis attorney." Arguably his most important work came in a years-long freedom of the press dispute that culminated in the critical Supreme Court ruling in Near v. Minnesota. The case stemmed from an attempt by then-Hennepin County Attorney Floyd B. Olson (later the Governor of Minnesota and leading light of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party) to place an injunction against a Minneapolis newspaper, The Saturday Press. Published by Jay M. Near and Howard A. Guilford and known for its anti-Semitism, anti-Communism and propensity to attack supposedly corrupt local officials such as mayor George E. Leach and police chief Frank W. Brunskill, The Saturday Press was a ripe target for Minnesota's new Public Nuisance Law of 1925. Also known as the "Minnesota Gag Law," the statute provided permanent injunctions against those who published, sold, distributed, or had in their possession any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper." A temporary injunction was granted against The Saturday Press and it was forced to cease publication pending further legal proceedings.

While Latimer was hardly a partisan of The Saturday Press, he did sympathize with their cause and was - as Near v. Minnesota chronicler Fred Friendly would later put it - "a kind of self-appointed Legal Aid Society." Under Latimer's advice, publishers Near and Guilford demurred in reply to the restraining order. While still abiding by that order in that they ceased publication, they argued that the temporary injunction was unconstitutional and did "not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action" on the part of the court.

In the hearing over the demurrer on December 1, 1927, Latimer argued that the Public Nuisance Law was "a subterfuge voted by the 1925 Legislature to get away from the state's constitution and libel laws..." He pointed out that "There are only two other countries in the world today with a statute similar to the one at issue...Italy and Russia." The latter comment was an ironic reference to a recent editorial in the influential Minneapolis Tribune, which had railed against the lack of press freedom in Benito Mussolini's Italy yet supported the Public Nuisance Law.

Judge Mathias Baldwin rejected the demurrer two weeks after the hearing. However he certified the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, leaving it to that body to decide the question of the law's constitutionality. As Friendly would later note, "By demurring, Latimer had opened the door for appeal, and by certifying the case, Judge Baldwin had kept the litigation alive..." The case came before the Minnesota Supreme Court on April 28, 1928, at which time Latimer argued that the Public Nuisance Law violated the Minnesota constitution and was "null, void, and invalid, being in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." The Minnesota court rejected this argument and affirmed the constitutionality of the law. However more powerful forces would soon pick up the fight against Minnesota's Public Nuisance Law (including the American Civil Liberties Union and the publisher of the Chicago Tribune) and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It marked the first time that a freedom of the press case involving prior restraints had made it to the high court. The Supreme Court, in what is widely hailed as a critical victory for freedom of the press, ultimately ruled that the Public Nuisance Law was unconstitutional. Though Latimer did not argue the case before the Court, it was the original demurrer he filed early in the case that created the basis on which the successful constitutional challenge would proceed.