Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

hopes of persuading others to follow her lead.  In doing so,
she  can  rely  on  the  merits  and  force  of  her  ideas,  the 
strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others.
What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State
to  punish  or  suppress  disfavored  expression.   See  Rosen-
berger, 515 U. S., at 830 (explaining that governmental ac-
tions seeking to suppress a speaker’s particular views are 
presumptively  unconstitutional).  In  such  cases,  it  is  “the 
application  of  state  power  which  we  are  asked  to  scruti-
nize.”  NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 
463 (1958).

In Bantam Books, this Court explored the distinction be-
tween permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible 
attempts  to  coerce.  There,  a  state  commission  used  its 
power to investigate and recommend criminal prosecution 
to  censor  publications  that,  in  its  view,  were  “ ‘objectiona-
ble’ ” because they threatened “youthful morals.”  372 U. S., 
at 59–62, 71.  The commission sent official notices to a dis-
tributor  for  blacklisted  publications  that  highlighted  the 
commission’s “duty to recommend to the Attorney General” 
violations of the State’s obscenity laws.  Id., at 62–63, and 
n. 5.  The notices also informed the distributor that the lists 
of  blacklisted  publications  “were  circulated  to  local  police 
departments,” and that the distributor’s cooperation in re-
moving the publications from the shelves would “ ‘eliminate 
the necessity’ ” of any referral for prosecution.  Ibid.  A local 
police officer also conducted followup visits to ensure com-
pliance.  In response, the distributor took “steps to stop fur-
ther  circulation  of  copies  of  the  listed  publications”  out  of
fear of facing “ ‘a court action.’ ”  Id., at 63. 

The  publishers  of  the  blacklisted  publications  sued  the
commission,  alleging  that  this  scheme of  informal  censor-
ship violated their First Amendment rights.  The commis-
sion  responded  that  “it  d[id]  not  regulate  or  suppress  ob-
scenity  but  simply  exhort[ed]  booksellers  and  advise[d] 
them of their legal rights.”  Id., at 66.  This Court sided with