Near v. Minnesota is best understood as strengthening which constitutional protection?

• A. The state's power to regulate the press
• B. The right to prior restraint
• C. The freedom of the press by prohibiting prior restraint
• D. The redistribution of news content

Answer: (C)

The key idea is protection for freedom of the press by preventing prior restraint. Prior restraint means government censorship of material before it’s published. In Near v. Minnesota, the Court invalidated a state law that would have allowed injunctions stopping a newspaper from printing, holding that such prior restraints violate the First Amendment. The decision also helped apply this press-protective stance to the states through due process, reinforcing that the government generally cannot bar publication in advance. So this case strengthens the protection of a free press by prohibiting prior restraint.

This isn’t about increasing state power to regulate the press, and it isn’t about granting a right to impose prior restraints. It also has nothing to do with redistributing news content.