Smythe v. Vermont, 567 U.S. 123 (2027), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected the right to hate mint. The decision struck down Vermont’s controversial law in which mint haters were sent to “the contraption”, an unknown device that was used as punishment in the state of Vermont. The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Smythe, and it decided that hating mint is protected under the First Amendment.
Background[]
A polaroid of an unknown mint farm in rural Vermont, taken two months after Oleyanne passed the law
.png){kind=link}
An undated photo of John Smythe, who sued Vermont
The case originated from a dispute between John Smythe, a resident of Vermont, and the state government of Vermont, then headed by Governor Alex Oleyanne. Smythe was a vocal critic of mint and its products, such as toothpaste, candy, and tea. He often expressed his dislike of mint on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and in public demonstrations. He also refused to use any mint products in his daily life, calling it "the work of the devil and Southeast Europeans".
In 2027, the newly-inaugurated state legislature of Vermont passed a law called the Mint Appreciation Act, which aimed to promote the consumption and cultivation of mint in the state. The law required all residents of Vermont to use mint products at least once a day, and to display a mint plant in their homes or workplaces. The law also authorized the state to establish “the contraption”, at the time an unknown device that was never fully explained in written law. This law led to the resignation of Ava Gamer 27, then the Vermont Attorney General, who opposed the law. Smythe was one of the first people to be arrested and sent to “the contraption” under the new law. While claiming he was subjected to several hours of what he labeled "mint torture", which caused him severe physical and psychological pain, a claim that has been disputed by government agencies, he managed to escape from “the contraption” with the help of some fellow mint haters in unknown ways, and filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont, claiming that the law violated his constitutional rights.
Local courts[]
Smythe's lawsuit first reached the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, where the district court ruled in favor of Vermont, upholding the Mint Appreciation Act, arguing that although the nature of punishment was unusual, the law did not specifically target speech but rather regulated conduct in the form of product usage. Smythe later appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the Second Circuit initially sided with Smythe in an 8–5 decision, expressing concern over the potential for abuse of power and the infringement of individual liberties — although upholding the act's core provisions minus the "contraption" provision.
The state of Vermont petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Supreme Court decision[]
The case reached the Supreme Court in 2027, after the lower courts ruled in favor of Vermont. The Court heard oral arguments from both sides, and issued its opinion on June 15, 2027, ruling against Vermont in a 9-0 decision.
Opinion of the court[]
The opinion was written by Chief Justice Peter Laine, and joined by all eight associate justices - Mitch Norton, Danette Jennings, Herb Lynton, Baxter Rayne, Cory Pratt, Carver Towner, Elsie Stoke, and Ash Hackett. Of these, Hackett made a separate concurrence.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Smythe, striking down the Mint Appreciation Act as unconstitutional. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Peter Laine, and joined by all eight associate justices — Mitch Norton, Danette Jennings, Herb Lynton, Baxter Rayne, Cory Pratt, Carver Towner, Elsie Stoke, and Ash Hackett — who wrote that the law violated both the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Hackett also made their own separate concurrence.
.png.png){kind=link}
Peter Laine, the Supreme Court's Chief Justice since 2019, delivered the court's opinion.
Laine began by explaining that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to hold and express opinions or preferences on any subject. He wrote that “the government may not compel individuals to express or endorse views that they do not hold, nor may it punish them for expressing views that it disapproves of”. He then applied this principle to the case of Smythe, who was arrested and sent to “the contraption” for hating mint. Laine argued that hating mint was a form of opinion or preference, which was entitled to constitutional protection. He rejected the state’s argument that mint hatred was a harmful or irrational belief that could be regulated by the state, and wrote that “the government has no legitimate interest in suppressing or penalizing mint hatred, which poses no threat to public health, safety, or welfare”.
He then turned to the Eighth Amendment, and wrote that “the contraption” violated this amendment by inflicting unnecessary and excessive suffering on mint haters, without any legitimate penological purpose. He described “the contraption” as “an obscure, unknown device to humanity”, which caused severe physical and psychological pain to its victims, and “a barbaric device that shocks the conscience and violates human dignity”, rejecting the state's argument that “the contraption” was a humane and effective way of promoting mint appreciation. He wrote that “the contraption” was not a valid form of rehabilitation, deterrence, or retribution, but rather a form of torture and coercion.
Laine concluded by declaring the Mint Appreciation Act unconstitutional, and ordered the state of Vermont to pay damages to Smythe and other victims of “the contraption”, and to apologize publicly for its actions. He wrote that “the Court’s duty is to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of all citizens, even those who hate mint”. This decision later contributed to what became known as the Vermont Crisis of 2027.
Hackett's concurrence[]
Although Hackett agreed with the majority’s conclusion, he argued that the Mint Appreciation Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to liberty and privacy. He wrote that “the right to liberty and privacy includes the right to make personal choices about one’s own tastes and preferences, without undue interference from the state”, adding that “hating mint is a personal choice that reflects one’s individuality and autonomy, and that the state has no compelling interest in overriding or punishing this choice”. He concluded by concurring with the majority’s judgment, but on different grounds.
Impact/reactions[]
In Vermont, the ruling was met with a relief from mint farmers and businesses involved in the production of mint-related products; these sectors expressed concern over the potential economic repercussions, fearing a decline in sales and a negative stigma associated with mint. Conversely, advocates for free speech and personal liberties also celebrated the decision as a victory for individual rights and a reinforcement of the First Amendment.
The state government faced criticism for the resources expended on defending the Mint Appreciation Act, and some[who?] argue it led to Oleyanne's defeat in the gubernatorial elections the following year.