JW Wikipedia pages

Poulos v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Poulos v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 3, 1953
 Decided April 27, 1953

Full case name
Poulos v. New Hampshire
Citations
345 U.S. 395 (more)
73 S. Ct. 760; 97 L. Ed. 1105; 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2606; 30 A.L.R.2d 987

Prior history
Appeal from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Court membership


Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton


Case opinions

Majority
Reed, joined by Vinson, Jackson, Burton, Clark, Minton
Concurrence
Frankfurter
Dissent
Black
Dissent
Douglas, joined by Black
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Poulos v. New Hampshire

Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a New Hampshire city ordinance regarding permission to hold a meeting in a public park did not violate the appellant's rights to Free Exercise of Religion even if he and his group were arbitrarily and unlawfully denied a license to hold a religious meeting in that public park.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Decision of the Court 2.1 Dissenting opinions
3 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
A Portsmouth, New Hampshire municipal ordinance provided that "No theatrical or dramatic representation shall be performed or exhibited and no parade or procession upon any public street or way, and no open air public meeting upon any ground abutting thereon shall be permitted unless a license therefor shall first be obtained from the City Council."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court had construed the discretion vested in the city council as "limited in its exercise by the bounds of reason, in uniformity of method of treatment upon the facts of each application, free from improper or inappropriate considerations and from unfair discrimination."
Thus, the discretion of the official was ministerial. The City could "take one of its small parks and devote it to public and nonreligious purposes under a system which is administered fairly and without bias or discrimination." In fact, the City of Portsmouth denied all religious groups the privilege of using the park for religious services.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, who applied for a permit and were arbitrarily denied, nevertheless chose to hold a religious meeting in the public park. The preacher was arrested. They argued, as they had done on dozens of cases previously, that the arbitrary action of the city council was a defense to their "illegal" holding of the religious meeting.
Decision of the Court[edit]
The Court ruled in favor of the City, deciding that because no appeal to the denial was made, despite ample opportunity, punishment under the law was constitutional.
Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice Douglas' approach to Free Exercise/Speech in this case was first articulated nearly a decade earlier in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He speaks of the "preferred position" granted freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly by the First Amendment. "The case is therefore quite different from a legislative program in the field of business, labor, housing and the like where regulation is permissible." He quoted with approval Justice Roberts' opinion in Cantwell v. Connecticut to the effect that even if there was an available remedy (such as mandamus) for abuses in the system of licensing, it still leaves in its place a system of prior restraint that was arbitrarily exercised.
Douglas was quite adamant: "There is no free speech in the sense of the Constitution when permission must be obtained from an official before a speech can be made." Thus, for him, the case was an example of prior restraint of a privileged freedom, a freedom that could be exercised with impunity if it was improperly curtailed by civic officials.
External links[edit]
Text of Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1953 in religion
Legal history of New Hampshire
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 April 2015, at 00:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulos_v._New_Hampshire








Poulos v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Poulos v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 3, 1953
 Decided April 27, 1953

Full case name
Poulos v. New Hampshire
Citations
345 U.S. 395 (more)
73 S. Ct. 760; 97 L. Ed. 1105; 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2606; 30 A.L.R.2d 987

Prior history
Appeal from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Court membership


Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton


Case opinions

Majority
Reed, joined by Vinson, Jackson, Burton, Clark, Minton
Concurrence
Frankfurter
Dissent
Black
Dissent
Douglas, joined by Black
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Poulos v. New Hampshire

Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a New Hampshire city ordinance regarding permission to hold a meeting in a public park did not violate the appellant's rights to Free Exercise of Religion even if he and his group were arbitrarily and unlawfully denied a license to hold a religious meeting in that public park.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Decision of the Court 2.1 Dissenting opinions
3 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
A Portsmouth, New Hampshire municipal ordinance provided that "No theatrical or dramatic representation shall be performed or exhibited and no parade or procession upon any public street or way, and no open air public meeting upon any ground abutting thereon shall be permitted unless a license therefor shall first be obtained from the City Council."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court had construed the discretion vested in the city council as "limited in its exercise by the bounds of reason, in uniformity of method of treatment upon the facts of each application, free from improper or inappropriate considerations and from unfair discrimination."
Thus, the discretion of the official was ministerial. The City could "take one of its small parks and devote it to public and nonreligious purposes under a system which is administered fairly and without bias or discrimination." In fact, the City of Portsmouth denied all religious groups the privilege of using the park for religious services.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, who applied for a permit and were arbitrarily denied, nevertheless chose to hold a religious meeting in the public park. The preacher was arrested. They argued, as they had done on dozens of cases previously, that the arbitrary action of the city council was a defense to their "illegal" holding of the religious meeting.
Decision of the Court[edit]
The Court ruled in favor of the City, deciding that because no appeal to the denial was made, despite ample opportunity, punishment under the law was constitutional.
Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice Douglas' approach to Free Exercise/Speech in this case was first articulated nearly a decade earlier in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He speaks of the "preferred position" granted freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly by the First Amendment. "The case is therefore quite different from a legislative program in the field of business, labor, housing and the like where regulation is permissible." He quoted with approval Justice Roberts' opinion in Cantwell v. Connecticut to the effect that even if there was an available remedy (such as mandamus) for abuses in the system of licensing, it still leaves in its place a system of prior restraint that was arbitrarily exercised.
Douglas was quite adamant: "There is no free speech in the sense of the Constitution when permission must be obtained from an official before a speech can be made." Thus, for him, the case was an example of prior restraint of a privileged freedom, a freedom that could be exercised with impunity if it was improperly curtailed by civic officials.
External links[edit]
Text of Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1953 in religion
Legal history of New Hampshire
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 April 2015, at 00:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulos_v._New_Hampshire








Prince v. Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)

Prince v. Massachusetts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 14, 1943
 Decided January 31, 1944

Full case name
Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Citations
321 U.S. 158 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Case opinions

Majority
Rutledge
Dissent
Murphy
Dissent
Jackson, joined by Roberts and Frankfurter
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Decision of the Court 2.1 Dissenting opinions
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
A Jehovah's Witness woman named Sarah Prince was convicted for violating child labor laws. She was the guardian of a nine-year-old girl, Betty M. Simmons, whom she had brought into a downtown area to preach on the streets. This preaching involved distributing literature in exchange for voluntary contributions. The child labor laws that she was charged with violating stipulated that no boys under 12 and no girls under 18 were permitted to sell literature or other goods on public thoroughfares.
There were three complaints filed against Prince:
1.Refusal to disclose her child's identity and age to a public officer whose duty was to enforce the statutes;
2.Furnishing the girl with magazines, knowing she was to sell them unlawfully, that is, on the street; and
3.As child's custodian, permitting her to work contrary to law.
Both Prince and her husband were ordained ministers and commonly took their children out to distribute religious literature. Prince argued that the state's child labor laws violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to exercise her religion and her equal protection rights, in particular because the children themselves were ministers of their religion as well.
Decision of the Court[edit]
In a 5–4 decision, with Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts' laws restricting the abilities of children to sell religious literature. The decision asserted that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
One issue that the Court considered was whether a parent's presence makes it permissible for the child to engage in actions that would otherwise be prohibited. Noting that the dangers would still exist, the Court decided that the state was free to legislate against this activity, even if adults were allowed to engage in them. The opinion included these assertions:

The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. Massachusetts has determined that an absolute prohibition, though one limited to streets and public places and to the incidental uses proscribed, is necessary to accomplish its legitimate objectives. Its power to attain them is broad enough to reach these peripheral instances in which the parent's supervision may reduce but cannot eliminate entirely the ill effects of the prohibited conduct. We think that with reference to the public proclaiming of religion, upon the streets and in other similar public places, the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, as is true in the case of other freedoms, and the rightful boundary of its power has not been crossed in this case.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice Frank Murphy dissented. In part he wrote: "Religious freedom is too sacred a right to be restricted or prohibited in any degree without convincing proof that a legitimate interest of the state is in grave danger."
Justice Robert H. Jackson, joined by Justices Owen Roberts and Felix Frankfurter, also dissented. They agreed with the judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
See also[edit]
Children's rights
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
References[edit]



External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Prince v. Massachusetts

Text of Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia  OpenJurist
  


Categories: United States children's rights case law
United States Supreme Court cases
1944 in United States case law
Children's rights
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court





Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 April 2015, at 02:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts








Prince v. Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)

Prince v. Massachusetts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 14, 1943
 Decided January 31, 1944

Full case name
Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Citations
321 U.S. 158 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Case opinions

Majority
Rutledge
Dissent
Murphy
Dissent
Jackson, joined by Roberts and Frankfurter
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Decision of the Court 2.1 Dissenting opinions
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
A Jehovah's Witness woman named Sarah Prince was convicted for violating child labor laws. She was the guardian of a nine-year-old girl, Betty M. Simmons, whom she had brought into a downtown area to preach on the streets. This preaching involved distributing literature in exchange for voluntary contributions. The child labor laws that she was charged with violating stipulated that no boys under 12 and no girls under 18 were permitted to sell literature or other goods on public thoroughfares.
There were three complaints filed against Prince:
1.Refusal to disclose her child's identity and age to a public officer whose duty was to enforce the statutes;
2.Furnishing the girl with magazines, knowing she was to sell them unlawfully, that is, on the street; and
3.As child's custodian, permitting her to work contrary to law.
Both Prince and her husband were ordained ministers and commonly took their children out to distribute religious literature. Prince argued that the state's child labor laws violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to exercise her religion and her equal protection rights, in particular because the children themselves were ministers of their religion as well.
Decision of the Court[edit]
In a 5–4 decision, with Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts' laws restricting the abilities of children to sell religious literature. The decision asserted that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
One issue that the Court considered was whether a parent's presence makes it permissible for the child to engage in actions that would otherwise be prohibited. Noting that the dangers would still exist, the Court decided that the state was free to legislate against this activity, even if adults were allowed to engage in them. The opinion included these assertions:

The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. Massachusetts has determined that an absolute prohibition, though one limited to streets and public places and to the incidental uses proscribed, is necessary to accomplish its legitimate objectives. Its power to attain them is broad enough to reach these peripheral instances in which the parent's supervision may reduce but cannot eliminate entirely the ill effects of the prohibited conduct. We think that with reference to the public proclaiming of religion, upon the streets and in other similar public places, the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, as is true in the case of other freedoms, and the rightful boundary of its power has not been crossed in this case.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice Frank Murphy dissented. In part he wrote: "Religious freedom is too sacred a right to be restricted or prohibited in any degree without convincing proof that a legitimate interest of the state is in grave danger."
Justice Robert H. Jackson, joined by Justices Owen Roberts and Felix Frankfurter, also dissented. They agreed with the judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
See also[edit]
Children's rights
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
References[edit]



External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Prince v. Massachusetts

Text of Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia  OpenJurist
  


Categories: United States children's rights case law
United States Supreme Court cases
1944 in United States case law
Children's rights
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court





Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 April 2015, at 02:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts








Saia v. New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Saia v. People of the State of New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 30, 1948
 Decided June 4, 1948

Full case name
Saia v. People of the State of New York
Citations
334 U.S. 558 (more)
Holding
New York's law prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices without consent from the chief of police is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton


Case opinions

Majority
Douglas, joined by Black, Murphy, Vinson, Rutledge
Dissent
Frankfurter, joined by Reed, Burton
Dissent
Jackson
Laws applied
Amendment I
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Saia v. New York

Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the Court
4 See also
5 References

Facts of the case[edit]
Saia, a minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained from the Lockport Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment mounted on his car to amplify lectures on religious subjects. The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When this permit expired, he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made. Saia nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions, but without a permit.
Prior history[edit]
Saia was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance. It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park and that they were on religious subjects. Some witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the sound, though not by the content of the addresses; others were not disturbed by either. The court upheld the ordinance against the contention that it violated appellant's rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship under the Federal Constitution. Fines and jail sentences were imposed. His convictions were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals, 297 N.Y. 659, 76 N.E.2d 323.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334
References[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1948 in United States case law
Niagara County, New York
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
1948 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saia_v._New_York









Saia v. New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Saia v. People of the State of New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 30, 1948
 Decided June 4, 1948

Full case name
Saia v. People of the State of New York
Citations
334 U.S. 558 (more)
Holding
New York's law prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices without consent from the chief of police is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton


Case opinions

Majority
Douglas, joined by Black, Murphy, Vinson, Rutledge
Dissent
Frankfurter, joined by Reed, Burton
Dissent
Jackson
Laws applied
Amendment I
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Saia v. New York

Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the Court
4 See also
5 References

Facts of the case[edit]
Saia, a minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained from the Lockport Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment mounted on his car to amplify lectures on religious subjects. The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When this permit expired, he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made. Saia nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions, but without a permit.
Prior history[edit]
Saia was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance. It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park and that they were on religious subjects. Some witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the sound, though not by the content of the addresses; others were not disturbed by either. The court upheld the ordinance against the contention that it violated appellant's rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship under the Federal Constitution. Fines and jail sentences were imposed. His convictions were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals, 297 N.Y. 659, 76 N.E.2d 323.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334
References[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1948 in United States case law
Niagara County, New York
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
1948 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saia_v._New_York








Schneider v. New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Schneider v. State of New Jersey
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 16, 1939
 Decided November 22, 1939

Full case name
Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington)
Citations
308 U.S. 147 (more)
60 S. Ct. 146;84 L. Ed. 155;1939 U.S. LEXIS 1115;2 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P17,049;5 L.R.R.M. 659

Prior history
Certiorari to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Holding
The Court held that the purpose of the ordinances (to keep the streets clean and of good appearance) was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds · Pierce Butler
Harlan F. Stone · Owen J. Roberts
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas


Case opinions

Majority
Roberts, joined by Hughes, Butler, Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
Dissent
McReynolds
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I, U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals (Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington), Young v. People of the State of California, Snyder v. City of Milwaukee, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts), each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The appellants (Jehovah's Witnesses) were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door-to-door.
Decision[edit]
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the purpose of the ordinances to keep the streets clean and of good appearance was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution resulted from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press. Concerning the distribution of materials from house to house without a permit, the ordinance was void.
This right is not absolute, however. Municipalities may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets, for the purpose of keeping them open and available for movement of people and property, so long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature.
See also[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Schneider v. New Jersey

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 308


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association
















Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
1939 in United States case law
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1939 in religion
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._New_Jersey








Schneider v. New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Schneider v. State of New Jersey
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 16, 1939
 Decided November 22, 1939

Full case name
Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington)
Citations
308 U.S. 147 (more)
60 S. Ct. 146;84 L. Ed. 155;1939 U.S. LEXIS 1115;2 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P17,049;5 L.R.R.M. 659

Prior history
Certiorari to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Holding
The Court held that the purpose of the ordinances (to keep the streets clean and of good appearance) was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds · Pierce Butler
Harlan F. Stone · Owen J. Roberts
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas


Case opinions

Majority
Roberts, joined by Hughes, Butler, Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
Dissent
McReynolds
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I, U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals (Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington), Young v. People of the State of California, Snyder v. City of Milwaukee, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts), each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The appellants (Jehovah's Witnesses) were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door-to-door.
Decision[edit]
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the purpose of the ordinances to keep the streets clean and of good appearance was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution resulted from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press. Concerning the distribution of materials from house to house without a permit, the ordinance was void.
This right is not absolute, however. Municipalities may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets, for the purpose of keeping them open and available for movement of people and property, so long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature.
See also[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Schneider v. New Jersey

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 308


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association
















Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
1939 in United States case law
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1939 in religion
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._New_Jersey








Sicurella v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Sicurella v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 1, 1955
 Decided March 14, 1955

Full case name
'
Citations
348 U.S. 385 (more)
75 S. Ct. 403; 99 L. Ed. 436; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1079

Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Case opinions

Majority
Clark
Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that willingness to fight in "theocratic" wars does not disqualify a Jehovah's Witness who would otherwise be eligible for exemption as a conscientious objector.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




Stub icon This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: 1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
American conscientious objectors
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States military case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
1955 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
United States Supreme Court stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicurella_v._United_States









Sicurella v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Sicurella v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 1, 1955
 Decided March 14, 1955

Full case name
'
Citations
348 U.S. 385 (more)
75 S. Ct. 403; 99 L. Ed. 436; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1079

Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Case opinions

Majority
Clark
Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that willingness to fight in "theocratic" wars does not disqualify a Jehovah's Witness who would otherwise be eligible for exemption as a conscientious objector.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




Stub icon This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: 1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
American conscientious objectors
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States military case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
1955 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
United States Supreme Court stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicurella_v._United_States








Simmons v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Simmons v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 2, 1955
 Decided March 14, 1955

Full case name
Simmons v. United States
Citations
348 U.S. 397 (more)
75 S. Ct. 397; 99 L. Ed. 453; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1080

Holding
The failure of the Department of Justice to furnish petitioner Simmons with a fair resume of all adverse information in the FBI report deprived him of the "hearing" provided by the Universal Military Training and Service Act. Conviction, and Seventh Circuit, reversed.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Case opinions

Majority
Clark, joined by Black and Douglas
Dissent
Reed
Dissent
Minton
Laws applied
Universal Military Training and Service Act
Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 (1955) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Opinion
3 Dissents
4 See also
5 References

Background[edit]
Petitioner Simmons registered in the Selective Service System in 1948 and was employed as a chauffeur at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. He was classified 1-A. Simmons married in 1949 and received a dependency deferment which lasted from 1951 through 1955, at which point he was again classified 1-A. During his deferment, Simmons became an ordained minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses and filed the special form for conscientious objectors, claiming exception from both combatant and non-combatant service. He appeared in person before his local board seeking exemption as a minister, but the board maintained his 1-A classification and, after an unsuccessful appeal, referred the case to the Department of Justice.
Following an investigation by the FBI, Simmons appeared at another hearing. While no notice for the hearing existed, similar forms used at the time state that the hearing officer would advise the registrant "as to the general nature and character" of adverse evidence in the FBI report if that information was requested. Evidence for this request was never found from before the hearing, but the request was made at the hearing. The hearing officer recommended that Simmons remain classified 1-A because his religious activities coincided with pressure from the draft board.
In appealing to an Appeal Board, the Department of Justice adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer because of the timing of Simmons' religious activities and alleged abuse toward his wife (evidence for which was presumably gathered by the FBI). The Appeal Board continued the 1-A classification, but Simmons refused to submit to induction and prosecution followed. Simmons claimed he had not been given a fair summary of the FBI report and secured a subpoena duces tecum requiring production of the report. The subpoena was quashed on motion of the government, Simmons was convicted, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Opinion[edit]
Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act provides that the Department of Justice must hold a hearing "with respect to the character and good faith" of any claimed conscientious objections. In a prior case (United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1 (1953)), relying on the availability of a summary of reports, the Court held that the Department satisfies its duties "when it accords a fair opportunity to the registrant to speak his piece before an impartial hearing officer; when it permits him to produce all relevant evidence in his own behalf and at the same time supplies him with a fair resume of any adverse evidence in the investigator's report." This is viewed as an essential element in the processing of conscientious objector claims, not a matter of grace within the Department's discretion.
Dissents[edit]
Though no formal dissent can be found, it is noted at the end of the opinion that Justice Reed would affirm the judgement of the Seventh Circuit on the grounds that no such summary was requested (by the petitioner) and, because of that, it was not necessary to furnish more to the registrant than was given by the hearing officer.
Justice Minton also dissented, arguing that even if a fair resume from the FBI was denied, it was not done arbitrarily and that the judgement of the board in doing so was, though erroneous, certainly allowable.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348
References[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: 1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
1955 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons_v._United_States








Simmons v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Simmons v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 2, 1955
 Decided March 14, 1955

Full case name
Simmons v. United States
Citations
348 U.S. 397 (more)
75 S. Ct. 397; 99 L. Ed. 453; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1080

Holding
The failure of the Department of Justice to furnish petitioner Simmons with a fair resume of all adverse information in the FBI report deprived him of the "hearing" provided by the Universal Military Training and Service Act. Conviction, and Seventh Circuit, reversed.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Case opinions

Majority
Clark, joined by Black and Douglas
Dissent
Reed
Dissent
Minton
Laws applied
Universal Military Training and Service Act
Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 (1955) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Opinion
3 Dissents
4 See also
5 References

Background[edit]
Petitioner Simmons registered in the Selective Service System in 1948 and was employed as a chauffeur at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. He was classified 1-A. Simmons married in 1949 and received a dependency deferment which lasted from 1951 through 1955, at which point he was again classified 1-A. During his deferment, Simmons became an ordained minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses and filed the special form for conscientious objectors, claiming exception from both combatant and non-combatant service. He appeared in person before his local board seeking exemption as a minister, but the board maintained his 1-A classification and, after an unsuccessful appeal, referred the case to the Department of Justice.
Following an investigation by the FBI, Simmons appeared at another hearing. While no notice for the hearing existed, similar forms used at the time state that the hearing officer would advise the registrant "as to the general nature and character" of adverse evidence in the FBI report if that information was requested. Evidence for this request was never found from before the hearing, but the request was made at the hearing. The hearing officer recommended that Simmons remain classified 1-A because his religious activities coincided with pressure from the draft board.
In appealing to an Appeal Board, the Department of Justice adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer because of the timing of Simmons' religious activities and alleged abuse toward his wife (evidence for which was presumably gathered by the FBI). The Appeal Board continued the 1-A classification, but Simmons refused to submit to induction and prosecution followed. Simmons claimed he had not been given a fair summary of the FBI report and secured a subpoena duces tecum requiring production of the report. The subpoena was quashed on motion of the government, Simmons was convicted, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Opinion[edit]
Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act provides that the Department of Justice must hold a hearing "with respect to the character and good faith" of any claimed conscientious objections. In a prior case (United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1 (1953)), relying on the availability of a summary of reports, the Court held that the Department satisfies its duties "when it accords a fair opportunity to the registrant to speak his piece before an impartial hearing officer; when it permits him to produce all relevant evidence in his own behalf and at the same time supplies him with a fair resume of any adverse evidence in the investigator's report." This is viewed as an essential element in the processing of conscientious objector claims, not a matter of grace within the Department's discretion.
Dissents[edit]
Though no formal dissent can be found, it is noted at the end of the opinion that Justice Reed would affirm the judgement of the Seventh Circuit on the grounds that no such summary was requested (by the petitioner) and, because of that, it was not necessary to furnish more to the registrant than was given by the hearing officer.
Justice Minton also dissented, arguing that even if a fair resume from the FBI was denied, it was not done arbitrarily and that the judgement of the board in doing so was, though erroneous, certainly allowable.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348
References[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: 1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
1955 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons_v._United_States








Taylor v. Mississippi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)

Taylor v. State of Mississippi
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 15–16, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
'
Citations
319 U.S. 583 (more)
63 S. Ct. 1200; 87 L. Ed. 1600; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 489

Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Taylor v. State of Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943), was a case involving three Jehovah's Witnesses in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal sanction cannot be imposed for communication that has not been shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government.
Facts of the case[edit]
March 20, 1942, the State of Mississippi enacted a statute the title of which declares that it is intended to [319 U.S. 583, 584] secure the peace and safety of the United States and of the State of Mississippi during war and to prohibit acts detrimental to public peace and safety. The first section, with which alone we are here concerned, provides:
'That any person who individually, or as a member of any organization, association, or otherwise, shall intentionally preach, teach, or disseminate any teachings, creed, theory, or set of alleged principles, orally, or by means of a phonograph or other contrivance of any kind or nature, or by any other means or method, or by the distribution of any sort of literature, or written or printed matter, designed and calculated to encourage violence, sabotage, or disloyalty to the government of the United States, or the state of Mississippi, or who by action or speech, advocates the cause of the enemies of the United States or who gives information as to the military operations, or plans of defense or military secrets of the nation or this state, by speech, letter, map or picture which would incite any sort of racial distrust, disorder, prejudices or hatreds, or which reasonably tends to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor or respect the flag or government of the United States, or of the state of Mississippi, shall be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary until treaty of peace be declared by the United States but such imprisonment shall not exceed ten years.'
Taylor was indicted for orally disseminating teachings designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the government of the United States and that of the State of Mississippi; and for orally disseminating teachings and distributing literature and printed matter reasonably tending to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor, and respect the flag and government of the United States and of the State of [319 U.S. 583, 585] Mississippi, and designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the government of the United States.
Betty Benoit was indicted for disseminating and distributing literature and printed matter designed and calculated, and which reasonably tended to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor, and respect the flag and government of the United States.
Cummings was indicted for distributing printed matter designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the United States government and to the State of Mississippi, and tending to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor or respect the flag or the government of the United States and the State of Mississippi.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Roberts delivered the decision of the Court, reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

The statute as construed in these cases makes it a criminal offense to communicate to others views and opinions respecting governmental policies, and prophesies concerning the future of our own and other nations. As applied to the appellants it punishes them although what they communicated is not claimed or shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government. What these appellants communicated were their beliefs and opinions concerning domestic measures and trends in national and world affairs. Under our decisions criminal sanctions cannot be imposed for such communication.
  


Categories: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1943 in religion





Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Mississippi









Taylor v. Mississippi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)

Taylor v. State of Mississippi
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 15–16, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
'
Citations
319 U.S. 583 (more)
63 S. Ct. 1200; 87 L. Ed. 1600; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 489

Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Taylor v. State of Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943), was a case involving three Jehovah's Witnesses in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal sanction cannot be imposed for communication that has not been shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government.
Facts of the case[edit]
March 20, 1942, the State of Mississippi enacted a statute the title of which declares that it is intended to [319 U.S. 583, 584] secure the peace and safety of the United States and of the State of Mississippi during war and to prohibit acts detrimental to public peace and safety. The first section, with which alone we are here concerned, provides:
'That any person who individually, or as a member of any organization, association, or otherwise, shall intentionally preach, teach, or disseminate any teachings, creed, theory, or set of alleged principles, orally, or by means of a phonograph or other contrivance of any kind or nature, or by any other means or method, or by the distribution of any sort of literature, or written or printed matter, designed and calculated to encourage violence, sabotage, or disloyalty to the government of the United States, or the state of Mississippi, or who by action or speech, advocates the cause of the enemies of the United States or who gives information as to the military operations, or plans of defense or military secrets of the nation or this state, by speech, letter, map or picture which would incite any sort of racial distrust, disorder, prejudices or hatreds, or which reasonably tends to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor or respect the flag or government of the United States, or of the state of Mississippi, shall be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary until treaty of peace be declared by the United States but such imprisonment shall not exceed ten years.'
Taylor was indicted for orally disseminating teachings designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the government of the United States and that of the State of Mississippi; and for orally disseminating teachings and distributing literature and printed matter reasonably tending to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor, and respect the flag and government of the United States and of the State of [319 U.S. 583, 585] Mississippi, and designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the government of the United States.
Betty Benoit was indicted for disseminating and distributing literature and printed matter designed and calculated, and which reasonably tended to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor, and respect the flag and government of the United States.
Cummings was indicted for distributing printed matter designed and calculated to encourage disloyalty to the United States government and to the State of Mississippi, and tending to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor or respect the flag or the government of the United States and the State of Mississippi.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Roberts delivered the decision of the Court, reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

The statute as construed in these cases makes it a criminal offense to communicate to others views and opinions respecting governmental policies, and prophesies concerning the future of our own and other nations. As applied to the appellants it punishes them although what they communicated is not claimed or shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government. What these appellants communicated were their beliefs and opinions concerning domestic measures and trends in national and world affairs. Under our decisions criminal sanctions cannot be imposed for such communication.
  


Categories: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1943 in religion





Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Mississippi









Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 7, 1980
 Decided October 6, 1981

Full case name
THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
ET AL.
 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
Citations
450 U.S. 707 (more)
Holding
"The State's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion..."[1]
Court membership


Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger


Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens


Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion under Sherbert v. Verner.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the Court 3.1 Dissenting opinions
4 Effects of the decision
5 Critical response
6 Subsequent history
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer's roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer's remaining departments to which transfer might have been sought were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
Prior history[edit]
At an administrative hearing, Thomas testified that he believed that contributing to the production of arms violated his religion, although he could, in good conscience, engage indirectly in the production of materials that might be used ultimately to fabricate arms. The hearing referee found that petitioner had terminated his employment because of his religious convictions, but held that petitioner was not entitled to benefits because his voluntary termination was not based upon a "good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work," as required by the Indiana statute.
The Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirmed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Indiana statute, as applied, improperly burdened petitioner's right to the free exercise of his religion. The Indiana Supreme Court vacated on petitioner's free exercise right, which burden was justified by legitimate state interests.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS joined, and in Parts I, II, and III of which Justice Harry Blackmun joined. Justice Blackmun filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the result.
The decision of the majority was that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation violated Thomas' right to free exercise of religion.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice William Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion.
Effects of the decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Critical response[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Subsequent history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 450
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b 450 U.S. 707 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]
Text of Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1981 in United States case law
1981 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division










Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 7, 1980
 Decided October 6, 1981

Full case name
THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
ET AL.
 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
Citations
450 U.S. 707 (more)
Holding
"The State's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion..."[1]
Court membership


Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger


Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens


Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion under Sherbert v. Verner.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the Court 3.1 Dissenting opinions
4 Effects of the decision
5 Critical response
6 Subsequent history
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer's roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer's remaining departments to which transfer might have been sought were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
Prior history[edit]
At an administrative hearing, Thomas testified that he believed that contributing to the production of arms violated his religion, although he could, in good conscience, engage indirectly in the production of materials that might be used ultimately to fabricate arms. The hearing referee found that petitioner had terminated his employment because of his religious convictions, but held that petitioner was not entitled to benefits because his voluntary termination was not based upon a "good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work," as required by the Indiana statute.
The Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirmed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Indiana statute, as applied, improperly burdened petitioner's right to the free exercise of his religion. The Indiana Supreme Court vacated on petitioner's free exercise right, which burden was justified by legitimate state interests.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS joined, and in Parts I, II, and III of which Justice Harry Blackmun joined. Justice Blackmun filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the result.
The decision of the majority was that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation violated Thomas' right to free exercise of religion.
Dissenting opinions[edit]
Justice William Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion.
Effects of the decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Critical response[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Subsequent history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 450
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b 450 U.S. 707 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]
Text of Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1981 in United States case law
1981 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division








Tucker v. Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Tucker v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1945
 Decided January 7, 1946

Full case name
Tucker v. State of Texas
Citations
326 U.S. 517 (more)
66 S. Ct. 274; 90 L. Ed. 274

Prior history
State of Texas v. Tucker, Justice Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported); Tucker v. State of Texas, County Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported)
Holding
Held that a statute used to punish an individual for refusing to refrain from religious activity is an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton


Case opinions

Majority
J. Black
Concurrence
J. Frankfurter
Dissent
C.J. Stone, joined by J. Reed and J. Burton
J. Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1; Tex. Pen. Code, Chap. 3, Art. 479 (1945)
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute making it an offense to distribute literature in a federal government-owned town was an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 History
1.2 Lower courts
1.3 Direct appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
2 Opinion of the Court 2.1 Concurrence
2.2 Dissent
3 Subsequent developments
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

Background[edit]
History[edit]
Tucker was an ordained minister of the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. In accordance with the practices of this group he called on people from door to door, presenting his religious views to those willing to listen, and distributes religious literature to those willing to receive it. In the course of his work, he went to the Hondo Navigation Village located on the Hondo Army Airfield in Medina County, Texas. The village was owned by the United States under a Congressional program which was designed to provide housing for persons engaged in National Defense activities. According to all indications the village was freely accessible and open to the public and had the characteristics of a typical American town.[1]
The Federal Public Housing Authority had placed the buildings in charge of a manager whose duty it was to rent the houses, collect the rents, and generally to supervise operations, subject to over-all control by the Authority. He ordered Tucker to discontinue all religious activities in the village. Tucker refused. Later the manager ordered Tucker to leave the village. Insisting that the manager had no right to suppress religious activities, appellant declined to leave, and his arrest followed. At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion. He thought this broad authority was entrusted to him, at least in part, by a regulation, which the Authority's Washington office had allegedly promulgated. He testified that this regulation provided that no peddlers or hawkers could come into or remain in the village without getting permission from the manager.[1]
Lower courts[edit]
Tucker was charged in the Justice Court of Medina County with violating Article 479, Chap. 3 of the Texas Penal Code which makes it an offense for any 'peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise' willfully to refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by the owner or possessor thereof. Tucker argued that he was not peddler or hawker of merchandise, but a minister of the gospel engaged in the distribution of religious literature to willing recipients. He contended that to construe the Texas statute as applicable to his activities would, to that extent, bring it into conflict with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and religion. His contention was rejected and he was convicted. On appeal to the Medina County Court, his Constitutional argument was again overruled.[1]
Direct appeal to U.S. Supreme Court[edit]
At the time, Texas law did not provide for a subsequent appeal to a higher state court. Under 28 U.S.C. 344(a) (now at 28 U.S.C. § 1257), the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal when there is no higher state court authorized to review the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.[1]
Opinion of the Court[edit]

Justice Hugo Black portrait

 Justice Hugo Black, author of majority opinion
Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court. Black referred to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)[2] which was decided during the same term. In that case, the court had held that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious literature by requiring a permit in a company town. Black noted that the only difference here was that the Marsh case involved a privately owned town and the current case involved a town owned by the federal government. Black allowed that there might be a case where it might be proper for security reasons to prohibit outsiders from entering such a housing area, but that did not apply in this case. The case was reversed and remanded.[1]
Concurrence[edit]

Justice Felix Frankfurter portrait

 Justice Felix Frankfurter, author of concurring opinion
Justice Felix Frankfurter issued a concurring opinion. Frankfurter noted that since the town was owned by the government rather than a private company, the government was held a higher requirement not to infringe on basic freedoms than a company. He also noted that this did not involve an act of Congress.[1]
Dissent[edit]

Chief Justice Harlan Stone portrait

 Justice Harlan Stone, author of dissenting opinion
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, Justice Stanley F. Reed and Justice Harold H. Burton construed this case as showing a conviction for refusing, at the request of its authorized agent, to leave premises which are owned by the United States and which have not been shown to be dedicated to general use by the public. They, therefore, would have upheld the conviction for the reasons given in the dissent in Marsh.[1][2]
Subsequent developments[edit]
Main article: United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
This case was one of a series of cases known as the Jehovah's Witnesses cases that clarified the Free Exercise Clause. Those cases were heard primarily from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s.[3] These cases also had a major role in enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Tucker, most of these cases dealt with the distribution of religious literature and door-to-door preaching.[3] Prior to these cases, the court had applied the clear and present danger test developed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to constitutional issues, but beginning with these cases, they begin to apply the strict scrutiny test.[4][5]
See also[edit]
Marsh v. Alabama
United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 326
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946)
2.^ Jump up to: a b Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
3.^ Jump up to: a b McAninch, William Shepard (1987), "A Catalyst for the Evolution of Constitutional Law: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55 U. Cin. L. Rev. 997
4.Jump up ^ Flynn, Patrick J. (2004), "'Writing their Faith into the Laws of the Land:' Jehovah's Witnesses and the Supreme Court's Battle for the Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, 1939-1945", Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 1 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 1
5.Jump up ^ Hough, Richard Lee (1953). "The Jehovah's Witnesses Cases in Retrospect". The Western Political Quarterly (University of Utah) 6 (1): 78–92. doi:10.1177/106591295300600105.
External links[edit]
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946)
  


Categories: 1946 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1946 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_v._Texas









Tucker v. Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Tucker v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1945
 Decided January 7, 1946

Full case name
Tucker v. State of Texas
Citations
326 U.S. 517 (more)
66 S. Ct. 274; 90 L. Ed. 274

Prior history
State of Texas v. Tucker, Justice Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported); Tucker v. State of Texas, County Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported)
Holding
Held that a statute used to punish an individual for refusing to refrain from religious activity is an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton


Case opinions

Majority
J. Black
Concurrence
J. Frankfurter
Dissent
C.J. Stone, joined by J. Reed and J. Burton
J. Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1; Tex. Pen. Code, Chap. 3, Art. 479 (1945)
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute making it an offense to distribute literature in a federal government-owned town was an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 History
1.2 Lower courts
1.3 Direct appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
2 Opinion of the Court 2.1 Concurrence
2.2 Dissent
3 Subsequent developments
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

Background[edit]
History[edit]
Tucker was an ordained minister of the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. In accordance with the practices of this group he called on people from door to door, presenting his religious views to those willing to listen, and distributes religious literature to those willing to receive it. In the course of his work, he went to the Hondo Navigation Village located on the Hondo Army Airfield in Medina County, Texas. The village was owned by the United States under a Congressional program which was designed to provide housing for persons engaged in National Defense activities. According to all indications the village was freely accessible and open to the public and had the characteristics of a typical American town.[1]
The Federal Public Housing Authority had placed the buildings in charge of a manager whose duty it was to rent the houses, collect the rents, and generally to supervise operations, subject to over-all control by the Authority. He ordered Tucker to discontinue all religious activities in the village. Tucker refused. Later the manager ordered Tucker to leave the village. Insisting that the manager had no right to suppress religious activities, appellant declined to leave, and his arrest followed. At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion. He thought this broad authority was entrusted to him, at least in part, by a regulation, which the Authority's Washington office had allegedly promulgated. He testified that this regulation provided that no peddlers or hawkers could come into or remain in the village without getting permission from the manager.[1]
Lower courts[edit]
Tucker was charged in the Justice Court of Medina County with violating Article 479, Chap. 3 of the Texas Penal Code which makes it an offense for any 'peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise' willfully to refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by the owner or possessor thereof. Tucker argued that he was not peddler or hawker of merchandise, but a minister of the gospel engaged in the distribution of religious literature to willing recipients. He contended that to construe the Texas statute as applicable to his activities would, to that extent, bring it into conflict with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and religion. His contention was rejected and he was convicted. On appeal to the Medina County Court, his Constitutional argument was again overruled.[1]
Direct appeal to U.S. Supreme Court[edit]
At the time, Texas law did not provide for a subsequent appeal to a higher state court. Under 28 U.S.C. 344(a) (now at 28 U.S.C. § 1257), the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal when there is no higher state court authorized to review the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.[1]
Opinion of the Court[edit]

Justice Hugo Black portrait

 Justice Hugo Black, author of majority opinion
Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court. Black referred to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)[2] which was decided during the same term. In that case, the court had held that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious literature by requiring a permit in a company town. Black noted that the only difference here was that the Marsh case involved a privately owned town and the current case involved a town owned by the federal government. Black allowed that there might be a case where it might be proper for security reasons to prohibit outsiders from entering such a housing area, but that did not apply in this case. The case was reversed and remanded.[1]
Concurrence[edit]

Justice Felix Frankfurter portrait

 Justice Felix Frankfurter, author of concurring opinion
Justice Felix Frankfurter issued a concurring opinion. Frankfurter noted that since the town was owned by the government rather than a private company, the government was held a higher requirement not to infringe on basic freedoms than a company. He also noted that this did not involve an act of Congress.[1]
Dissent[edit]

Chief Justice Harlan Stone portrait

 Justice Harlan Stone, author of dissenting opinion
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, Justice Stanley F. Reed and Justice Harold H. Burton construed this case as showing a conviction for refusing, at the request of its authorized agent, to leave premises which are owned by the United States and which have not been shown to be dedicated to general use by the public. They, therefore, would have upheld the conviction for the reasons given in the dissent in Marsh.[1][2]
Subsequent developments[edit]
Main article: United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
This case was one of a series of cases known as the Jehovah's Witnesses cases that clarified the Free Exercise Clause. Those cases were heard primarily from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s.[3] These cases also had a major role in enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Tucker, most of these cases dealt with the distribution of religious literature and door-to-door preaching.[3] Prior to these cases, the court had applied the clear and present danger test developed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to constitutional issues, but beginning with these cases, they begin to apply the strict scrutiny test.[4][5]
See also[edit]
Marsh v. Alabama
United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 326
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946)
2.^ Jump up to: a b Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
3.^ Jump up to: a b McAninch, William Shepard (1987), "A Catalyst for the Evolution of Constitutional Law: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55 U. Cin. L. Rev. 997
4.Jump up ^ Flynn, Patrick J. (2004), "'Writing their Faith into the Laws of the Land:' Jehovah's Witnesses and the Supreme Court's Battle for the Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, 1939-1945", Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 1 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 1
5.Jump up ^ Hough, Richard Lee (1953). "The Jehovah's Witnesses Cases in Retrospect". The Western Political Quarterly (University of Utah) 6 (1): 78–92. doi:10.1177/106591295300600105.
External links[edit]
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946)
  


Categories: 1946 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1946 in religion
Christianity and law in the 20th century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_v._Texas








Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 26, 2002
 Decided June 17, 2002

Full case name
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al., v. Village of Stratton, et al.
Citations
536 U.S. 150 (more)
122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205

Holding
A town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
Court membership


Chief Justice
William Rehnquist


Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer


Case opinions

Majority
Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence
Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Concurrence
Scalia, joined by Thomas
Dissent
Rehnquist
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Amicus briefs
2 Opinion of the Court
3 Subsequent developments
4 References

Background[edit]
The Village of Stratton, Ohio promulgated an ordinance that, among other things, prohibited "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office by completing and signing a registration form. The ordinance imposed criminal sanctions on canvassing or soliciting without a license.[1] The Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that publishes and distributes religious materials, sought injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates its First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press.
The registration procedure, revised once to address objections from the Jehovah's Witnesses, required the applicant to provide detailed information that is then posted in a public record: the applicant's name, home address, the organization or cause to be promoted, the name and address of the employer or affiliated organization (with credentials from the employer or organization showing the individual's exact relationship), the length of time that "the privilege to canvass or solicit is desired," the addresses to be contacted, and "such other information concerning the Registrant and its business or purpose as may be reasonably necessary to accurately describe the nature of the privilege required."
Stratton's anti-solicitation ordinance required registration of those who seek the "privilege" of going door-to-door, and also required the would-be solicitor to carry a permit which must be shown to anybody (i.e. police officer, or Village resident) who requests it.
Under the ordinance, residents of Stratton had the right to opt out of all or some solicitations through two means. First, they could post a "no solicitation" or "no trespassing" sign on their property. Residents could also fill out a "no solicitation" registration form at the office of the mayor. As part of the registration form, residents could indicate permission for solicitations from any or all of a series of listed groups: Scouting organizations, trick-or-treaters, food vendors, Christmas carolers, political candidates, campaigners, Jehovah's Witnesses, "Persons affiliated with __ Church," and other groups.
The Jehovah's Witnesses pointed to the fact that they were the only religious organization singled out on this form, as well as to discriminatory statements made by Stratton's mayor, as indications of an anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias underlying the law. The village of Stratton, on the other hand, claimed that the ordinance was motivated by a desire to protect Stratton's elderly citizens from potential frauds and scams.
The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid, content-neutral regulations, although it did require the Village to accept narrowing constructions of several provisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Among its rulings, that court held that the ordinance was content neutral and of general applicability and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny; rejected petitioners' argument that the ordinance is overbroad because it impairs the right to distribute pamphlets anonymously that was recognized in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334; concluded that the Village's interests in protecting its residents from fraud and undue annoyance and its desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation; and distinguished this Court's earlier cases protecting the Jehovah's Witnesses ministry.
Amicus briefs[edit]
Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Village of Stratton case:
Independent Baptist Church of America
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Center for Individual Freedom
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
On June 17, 2002, the Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that the requirement of the Village of Stratton's ordinance for solicitors to "register" before engaging in door-to-door advocacy violated the First Amendment. The Court stated "it is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." The Supreme Court did not address the remaining provisions of the ordinance, which remain valid and legally enforceable.
Subsequent developments[edit]
While municipalities across the United States generally abandoned ordinances similar to that which had been overturned, others apparently directed or tolerated subsequent police interference with house-to-house religious canvassing. Such incidents are now handled collectively by the Jehovah's Witnesses branch office of the land in which they occur, rather than on a case-by-case basis by local Witnesses themselves.[2]
Citing repeatedly from the now-settled law of Stratton, the Watchtower Society in 2009 filed with the United States Court of Appeals for relief from Puerto Rico's new law restricting canvassing on public streets in public, gated neighborhoods.[3] The law was widely interpreted as intended to restrict Jehovah's Witnesses' house-to-house evangelism.[4][5]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Village of Stratton ordinance 1998-5.
2.Jump up ^ "Question Box", Our Kingdom Ministry, October 2009, ©Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., page 3, "What should you do if directed to stop preaching? In some instances, the police have approached publishers who were sharing in some form of the ministry, informed them that they were violating the law, and directed them to stop. You should promptly and politely leave the territory if directed to do so. ...If it is possible, tactfully obtain the badge number of the police officer and the number of his precinct. Thereafter, promptly inform the elders, who will then contact the branch office about the incident."
3.Jump up ^ See Watchtower Society v. De Jesus et al
4.Jump up ^ "Walling off the Witnesses" by Joel P. Engardio, The Washington Post, January 26, 2010, As Retrieved 2010-02-23
5.Jump up ^ "ACLU Brief Affirms Right Of Jehovah's Witnesses To Carry Out Public Ministry", ACLU.org website, January 21, 2010, As Retrieved 2010-02-23
Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
Free speech case law
2002 in United States case law
2002 in religion
Jefferson County, Ohio
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
Christianity and law in the 21st century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Society_of_New_York,_Inc._v._Village_of_Stratton









Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 26, 2002
 Decided June 17, 2002

Full case name
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al., v. Village of Stratton, et al.
Citations
536 U.S. 150 (more)
122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205

Holding
A town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
Court membership


Chief Justice
William Rehnquist


Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer


Case opinions

Majority
Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence
Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Concurrence
Scalia, joined by Thomas
Dissent
Rehnquist
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Amicus briefs
2 Opinion of the Court
3 Subsequent developments
4 References

Background[edit]
The Village of Stratton, Ohio promulgated an ordinance that, among other things, prohibited "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office by completing and signing a registration form. The ordinance imposed criminal sanctions on canvassing or soliciting without a license.[1] The Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that publishes and distributes religious materials, sought injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates its First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press.
The registration procedure, revised once to address objections from the Jehovah's Witnesses, required the applicant to provide detailed information that is then posted in a public record: the applicant's name, home address, the organization or cause to be promoted, the name and address of the employer or affiliated organization (with credentials from the employer or organization showing the individual's exact relationship), the length of time that "the privilege to canvass or solicit is desired," the addresses to be contacted, and "such other information concerning the Registrant and its business or purpose as may be reasonably necessary to accurately describe the nature of the privilege required."
Stratton's anti-solicitation ordinance required registration of those who seek the "privilege" of going door-to-door, and also required the would-be solicitor to carry a permit which must be shown to anybody (i.e. police officer, or Village resident) who requests it.
Under the ordinance, residents of Stratton had the right to opt out of all or some solicitations through two means. First, they could post a "no solicitation" or "no trespassing" sign on their property. Residents could also fill out a "no solicitation" registration form at the office of the mayor. As part of the registration form, residents could indicate permission for solicitations from any or all of a series of listed groups: Scouting organizations, trick-or-treaters, food vendors, Christmas carolers, political candidates, campaigners, Jehovah's Witnesses, "Persons affiliated with __ Church," and other groups.
The Jehovah's Witnesses pointed to the fact that they were the only religious organization singled out on this form, as well as to discriminatory statements made by Stratton's mayor, as indications of an anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias underlying the law. The village of Stratton, on the other hand, claimed that the ordinance was motivated by a desire to protect Stratton's elderly citizens from potential frauds and scams.
The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid, content-neutral regulations, although it did require the Village to accept narrowing constructions of several provisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Among its rulings, that court held that the ordinance was content neutral and of general applicability and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny; rejected petitioners' argument that the ordinance is overbroad because it impairs the right to distribute pamphlets anonymously that was recognized in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334; concluded that the Village's interests in protecting its residents from fraud and undue annoyance and its desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation; and distinguished this Court's earlier cases protecting the Jehovah's Witnesses ministry.
Amicus briefs[edit]
Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Village of Stratton case:
Independent Baptist Church of America
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Center for Individual Freedom
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
On June 17, 2002, the Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that the requirement of the Village of Stratton's ordinance for solicitors to "register" before engaging in door-to-door advocacy violated the First Amendment. The Court stated "it is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." The Supreme Court did not address the remaining provisions of the ordinance, which remain valid and legally enforceable.
Subsequent developments[edit]
While municipalities across the United States generally abandoned ordinances similar to that which had been overturned, others apparently directed or tolerated subsequent police interference with house-to-house religious canvassing. Such incidents are now handled collectively by the Jehovah's Witnesses branch office of the land in which they occur, rather than on a case-by-case basis by local Witnesses themselves.[2]
Citing repeatedly from the now-settled law of Stratton, the Watchtower Society in 2009 filed with the United States Court of Appeals for relief from Puerto Rico's new law restricting canvassing on public streets in public, gated neighborhoods.[3] The law was widely interpreted as intended to restrict Jehovah's Witnesses' house-to-house evangelism.[4][5]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Village of Stratton ordinance 1998-5.
2.Jump up ^ "Question Box", Our Kingdom Ministry, October 2009, ©Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., page 3, "What should you do if directed to stop preaching? In some instances, the police have approached publishers who were sharing in some form of the ministry, informed them that they were violating the law, and directed them to stop. You should promptly and politely leave the territory if directed to do so. ...If it is possible, tactfully obtain the badge number of the police officer and the number of his precinct. Thereafter, promptly inform the elders, who will then contact the branch office about the incident."
3.Jump up ^ See Watchtower Society v. De Jesus et al
4.Jump up ^ "Walling off the Witnesses" by Joel P. Engardio, The Washington Post, January 26, 2010, As Retrieved 2010-02-23
5.Jump up ^ "ACLU Brief Affirms Right Of Jehovah's Witnesses To Carry Out Public Ministry", ACLU.org website, January 21, 2010, As Retrieved 2010-02-23
Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[hide] 
Free Exercise Clause


Reynolds v. United States (1879) ·
 Davis v. Beason (1890) ·
 Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ·
 Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ·
 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) ·
 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ·
 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) ·
 United States v. Lee (1982) ·
 Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ·
 Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) ·
 Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ·
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ·
 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) ·
 Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) ·
 Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) ·
 Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
 




[show] 
Freedom of speech (portal)






























































































































































































































[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
Free speech case law
2002 in United States case law
2002 in religion
Jefferson County, Ohio
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
Christianity and law in the 21st century


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Society_of_New_York,_Inc._v._Village_of_Stratton








West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2008)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 11, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. v. Walter Barnette, et al.
Citations
319 U.S. 624 (more)
63 S. Ct. 1178; 87 L. Ed. 1628; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 490; 147 A.L.R. 674

Prior history
Injunction granted, 47 F. Supp. 251 (S.D. W. Va. 1942)
Holding
The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. District Court affirmed.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Case opinions

Majority
Jackson, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge
Concurrence
Black, joined by Douglas
Concurrence
Murphy
Dissent
Frankfurter
Dissent
Roberts, Reed
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; W. Va. Code § 1734 (1941)
This case overturned a previous ruling

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The Court's 6-3 opinion, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."
It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs, but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone.
Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (also involving the children of Jehovah's Witnesses), in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically.
However, in overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Arguments
3 Decision of the Court 3.1 Majority opinion
3.2 Concurring opinion
3.3 Dissenting opinion
4 Subsequent history
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
Following the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision, the West Virginia Legislature amended its statutes to require all schools in the state to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government." The West Virginia State Board of Education was directed to "prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects" for public schools.
The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court's Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become "a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools," that all teachers and pupils "shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly." The resolution originally required the "commonly accepted salute to the Flag" which it defined. Objections to the salute as "being too much like Hitler's" were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah's Witnesses. What was required after the modification was a "stiff-arm" salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."



 Students pledging to the flag with the Bellamy salute, March 1941.
Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. On the advice of an early attorney, Mr Horace S. Meldahl of Charleston, the Barnettes had avoided the further complications by having their expelled girls return to school each day, though the school would send them home.[2]
The Barnettes brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses taught and still teach that the obligation imposed by the law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.' They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command. For this reason they refused to salute the flag. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from school and were threatened with exclusion for no other cause. Officials threatened to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children had been prosecuted and were being threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency.
Arguments[edit]
The state's principal argument was that Barnette raised no substantial federal question because Gobitis settled the constitutional questions raised by the flag-salute expulsions. The state's brief quoted extensively from Justice Frankfurter's Gobitis opinion. Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state's lawyers could do. The American Legion's amicus curiae brief filed in support of the state's appeal did little more than duplicate the West Virginia argument.[3]
Hayden Covington answered the state's appeal in a brief that was a mixture of Jehovah's Witnesses Bible teachings and Constitutional arguments. He included a fiery attack on the Court's Gobitis opinion, especially rejecting Justice Frankfurter's deference to legislative policymaking authority. Such deference, he argued, allowed the legislature to define its own powers. He emphasized the nationwide persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses that had followed Gobitis and concluded with a long list of law journal and newspaper articles that criticized the decision.[3] The American Bar Association's Committee on the Bill of Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus curiae briefs that argued Gobitis was bad law and should be overruled.[3]
Decision of the Court[edit]
The Court held, in a 6-to-3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas." "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court wrote, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court eloquently stated: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." To underscore its decision, the Supreme Court announced it on Flag Day.
Majority opinion[edit]
Justice Robert Jackson, who had joined the court only two years earlier, wrote the decision, echoing the free-expression sentiments of Stromberg v. California.
The opinion that Justice Felix Frankfurter had authored three years earlier in Gobitis rested on four arguments. In Barnette Justice Jackson addressed each element of Frankfurter’s Gobitis decision. Jackson began with Frankfurter’s designation of the flag as a national symbol. He did not question Frankfurter’s designation of the flag as a national symbol; instead, he criticized the pedestal on which Frankfurter put such national symbols. Jackson called symbols a “primitive but effective way of communicating ideas,” and explained that “a person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.”
Next Jackson denied Frankfurter’s argument that flag-saluting ceremonies were an appropriate way to build the “cohesive sentiment” that Frankfurter believed national unity depended on. Jackson rejected Frankfurter’s argument, citing the Roman effort to drive out Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition of the Jews and the Siberian exile of Soviet dissidents as evidence of the “ultimate futility” of efforts to coerce unanimous sentiment out of a populace. Jackson warned that “[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
Then Jackson dealt with Frankfurter’s assertion that forcing students to salute the flag, and threatening them with expulsion if they chose not to, was a permissible way to foster national unity. Jackson’s rejection of this section of Frankfurter’s argument has proved the most quoted section of his opinion. In his Gobitis opinion Frankfurter’s solution was for the dissenters to seek out solutions to their problems at the ballot box. Jackson responded that the conflict in this case was between authority and the individual and that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. Jackson wrote:[4]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
The last leg of Frankfurter’s Gobitis opinion reasoned that matters like saluting the flag were issues of “school discipline” that are better left to local officials rather than federal judges. Justice Jackson rejected this argument as well:

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Concurring opinion[edit]
Two of the justices who changed their minds between Minersville and West Virginia v. Barnette — Hugo Black and William O. Douglas — would become the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment.
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest," wrote Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."
Dissenting opinion[edit]



 Justice Felix Frankfurter
Three years earlier seven justices had followed Frankfurter's reasoning and joined his majority opinion in Gobitis. In Barnette however, only Frankfurter filed a written dissent, while Justices Owen Roberts and Stanley Reed dissented in silence.
Frankfurter said that the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the West Virginia law. He said, too, that freedom of religion did not allow individuals to break laws simply because of religious conscience. Frankfurter argued that, "Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws."
Frankfurter's response to Jackson's systematic destruction of his Gobitis decision was one of anger, and Justices Roberts and Murphy tried to get him to revise his opinion, arguing that the first two lines were “much too personal”. However, Frankfurter ignored the advice of his fellow justices, taking the overruling of his Gobitis decision as a personal affront and insisting on speaking his mind.
Frankfurter began with a reference to his Jewish roots: “One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.” This was the passage Justices Roberts and Frank Murphy felt was out of place. Frankfurter, however, insisted that the passage was necessary since he claimed he was “literally flooded with letters” following the Court's decision in Gobitis that said he should be more sensitive to the protection of minorities due to his Jewish heritage. Frankfurter's dissent continued, “Were my purely personal attitudes relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the generally libertarian views in the Court's opinion . . . But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic.”
Having responded to his critics and the Court's reversal on a personal level, he now responded on a judicial one, with the remainder of his opinion focusing on judicial restraint. “As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution.... It can never be emphasized too much that one's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one's duty on the bench.”
Frankfurter continued, arguing that if the Court is frequently striking down laws it is circumventing the democratic process, since the Court cannot work to reach a compromise. It either strikes down a law or lets it stand; it cannot simply modify or qualify a law as a legislature can.
Finally Frankfurter rejected Justice Stone's rational basis test that Stone laid out in United States v. Carolene Products Co.. Instead Frankfurter focused on his belief that there were no provisions within the constitution that occupied a “preferred position” over others.
Subsequent history[edit]
The majority opinion in Barnette is considered one of the Court's greatest and most sweeping statements about the fundamental freedoms established by the Bill of Rights. After Barnette, the Court began to turn away from the belief-action doctrine altogether, creating religious exemption for believers of different creeds. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), for example, the Court upheld a Seventh-day Adventist's claim to unemployment benefits even though she declined to make herself available to work on Saturday (her Sabbath) as the law required. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court upheld the right of Amish parents not to send their children to public schools past the eighth grade.
At 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Justice Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, Supreme Court law clerks from that Court were on a panel with the two eponymous Barnettes. Just as she and her sister had in 1942, Gathie Barnette Edmonds noted that her own son was also sent to the principal's office for not saluting the flag.[5]
See also[edit]
Wooley v. Maynard
Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Flag Salute Cases", Historic U.S. Court Cases by John W. Johnson, ©2001, Routledge, page 953, "Though the Flag Salute Cases are generally seen as involving freedom of religion, that issue is virtually absent from Jackson's majority opinion. He accepted, without question, that the Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely held beliefs which made it impossible for them to conscientiously salute the flag. But Jackson did not offer any analysis of the importance of that belief or even of the role of religious freedom in striking down the mandatory flag salute. Rather than grounding his opinion in terms of freedom of religion, Jackson analyzed the case as one of freedom of speech and expression." Online
2.Jump up ^ "Article: Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 770-771, from April 28, 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York:
Moderator: What was your parents’ decision about how to handle this situation: The school has a mandatory flag salute, thanks to the State Education Department regulation, and you have your religious belief?
[Gathie Barnette] Edmonds: When we went home, of course, they understood and they said not to worry about it. And our uncle helped us get a lawyer, Mr. Horace Meldahl in Charleston, who was a very understanding person, a nice person. He told us that we had to go back to school every morning for a while.
Moderator: Why was that?
Edmonds: So they wouldn’t fine our dad or put him in jail.
[Marie Barnette] Snodgrass: So they couldn’t say we were just being truant. And so we went every morning and stayed until the flag salute, and they’d tell us to go home. It was fortunate that we lived fairly close—we didn’t have a long distance to go.
Moderator: And that was the end of the school day for you?
Edmonds: Yes. Once the truant officer came and asked my mother why we weren’t in school, and she could say, “Well, we sent ‘em and they sent ‘em home.” So that kind of took, you know, the edge off of them. Our parents didn’t keep us home.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c Manwaring, Render Unto Caesar
4.Jump up ^ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 (US 1943).
5.Jump up ^ "Article: Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 792 (38/42), from April 28, 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, "[The older of the two Barnett girls, Gathie Barnett] Edmonds: ...I remember when my older son was sent to the office for not saluting the flag. The principal came back and said your teacher obviously doesn’t remember the Supreme Court decision."
Further reading[edit]
Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 428–436. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
Irons, Peter H. (1999). A People’s History of the Supreme Court. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
Kommers, Donald P.; Finn, John E.; Jacobsohn, Gary J. (2004). American Constitutional Law. Vol. 2 (2nd edition ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-2688-7.
Sandmann, Warren (2003). "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 100–115. ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Text of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia  Cornell LII
First Amendment Library entry on West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett[dead link]
What We Owe Jehovah's Witnesses, by Sarah Barringer Gordon, April/May 2011 American History magazine; article on Barnette's effects on Constitutional Law.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: 1943 in education
1943 in religion
1943 in United States case law
1943 in West Virginia
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Education in West Virginia
Flag controversies in the United States
Legal history of West Virginia
Pledge of Allegiance
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States education case law
United States Free Speech Clause case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 May 2015, at 18:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette








West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2008)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 11, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. v. Walter Barnette, et al.
Citations
319 U.S. 624 (more)
63 S. Ct. 1178; 87 L. Ed. 1628; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 490; 147 A.L.R. 674

Prior history
Injunction granted, 47 F. Supp. 251 (S.D. W. Va. 1942)
Holding
The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. District Court affirmed.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


Associate Justices
Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge


Case opinions

Majority
Jackson, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge
Concurrence
Black, joined by Douglas
Concurrence
Murphy
Dissent
Frankfurter
Dissent
Roberts, Reed
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; W. Va. Code § 1734 (1941)
This case overturned a previous ruling

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The Court's 6-3 opinion, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."
It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs, but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone.
Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (also involving the children of Jehovah's Witnesses), in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically.
However, in overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Arguments
3 Decision of the Court 3.1 Majority opinion
3.2 Concurring opinion
3.3 Dissenting opinion
4 Subsequent history
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Facts of the case[edit]
Following the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision, the West Virginia Legislature amended its statutes to require all schools in the state to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government." The West Virginia State Board of Education was directed to "prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects" for public schools.
The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court's Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become "a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools," that all teachers and pupils "shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly." The resolution originally required the "commonly accepted salute to the Flag" which it defined. Objections to the salute as "being too much like Hitler's" were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah's Witnesses. What was required after the modification was a "stiff-arm" salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."



 Students pledging to the flag with the Bellamy salute, March 1941.
Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. On the advice of an early attorney, Mr Horace S. Meldahl of Charleston, the Barnettes had avoided the further complications by having their expelled girls return to school each day, though the school would send them home.[2]
The Barnettes brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses taught and still teach that the obligation imposed by the law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.' They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command. For this reason they refused to salute the flag. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from school and were threatened with exclusion for no other cause. Officials threatened to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children had been prosecuted and were being threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency.
Arguments[edit]
The state's principal argument was that Barnette raised no substantial federal question because Gobitis settled the constitutional questions raised by the flag-salute expulsions. The state's brief quoted extensively from Justice Frankfurter's Gobitis opinion. Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state's lawyers could do. The American Legion's amicus curiae brief filed in support of the state's appeal did little more than duplicate the West Virginia argument.[3]
Hayden Covington answered the state's appeal in a brief that was a mixture of Jehovah's Witnesses Bible teachings and Constitutional arguments. He included a fiery attack on the Court's Gobitis opinion, especially rejecting Justice Frankfurter's deference to legislative policymaking authority. Such deference, he argued, allowed the legislature to define its own powers. He emphasized the nationwide persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses that had followed Gobitis and concluded with a long list of law journal and newspaper articles that criticized the decision.[3] The American Bar Association's Committee on the Bill of Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus curiae briefs that argued Gobitis was bad law and should be overruled.[3]
Decision of the Court[edit]
The Court held, in a 6-to-3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas." "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court wrote, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court eloquently stated: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." To underscore its decision, the Supreme Court announced it on Flag Day.
Majority opinion[edit]
Justice Robert Jackson, who had joined the court only two years earlier, wrote the decision, echoing the free-expression sentiments of Stromberg v. California.
The opinion that Justice Felix Frankfurter had authored three years earlier in Gobitis rested on four arguments. In Barnette Justice Jackson addressed each element of Frankfurter’s Gobitis decision. Jackson began with Frankfurter’s designation of the flag as a national symbol. He did not question Frankfurter’s designation of the flag as a national symbol; instead, he criticized the pedestal on which Frankfurter put such national symbols. Jackson called symbols a “primitive but effective way of communicating ideas,” and explained that “a person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.”
Next Jackson denied Frankfurter’s argument that flag-saluting ceremonies were an appropriate way to build the “cohesive sentiment” that Frankfurter believed national unity depended on. Jackson rejected Frankfurter’s argument, citing the Roman effort to drive out Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition of the Jews and the Siberian exile of Soviet dissidents as evidence of the “ultimate futility” of efforts to coerce unanimous sentiment out of a populace. Jackson warned that “[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
Then Jackson dealt with Frankfurter’s assertion that forcing students to salute the flag, and threatening them with expulsion if they chose not to, was a permissible way to foster national unity. Jackson’s rejection of this section of Frankfurter’s argument has proved the most quoted section of his opinion. In his Gobitis opinion Frankfurter’s solution was for the dissenters to seek out solutions to their problems at the ballot box. Jackson responded that the conflict in this case was between authority and the individual and that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. Jackson wrote:[4]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
The last leg of Frankfurter’s Gobitis opinion reasoned that matters like saluting the flag were issues of “school discipline” that are better left to local officials rather than federal judges. Justice Jackson rejected this argument as well:

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Concurring opinion[edit]
Two of the justices who changed their minds between Minersville and West Virginia v. Barnette — Hugo Black and William O. Douglas — would become the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment.
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest," wrote Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."
Dissenting opinion[edit]



 Justice Felix Frankfurter
Three years earlier seven justices had followed Frankfurter's reasoning and joined his majority opinion in Gobitis. In Barnette however, only Frankfurter filed a written dissent, while Justices Owen Roberts and Stanley Reed dissented in silence.
Frankfurter said that the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the West Virginia law. He said, too, that freedom of religion did not allow individuals to break laws simply because of religious conscience. Frankfurter argued that, "Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws."
Frankfurter's response to Jackson's systematic destruction of his Gobitis decision was one of anger, and Justices Roberts and Murphy tried to get him to revise his opinion, arguing that the first two lines were “much too personal”. However, Frankfurter ignored the advice of his fellow justices, taking the overruling of his Gobitis decision as a personal affront and insisting on speaking his mind.
Frankfurter began with a reference to his Jewish roots: “One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.” This was the passage Justices Roberts and Frank Murphy felt was out of place. Frankfurter, however, insisted that the passage was necessary since he claimed he was “literally flooded with letters” following the Court's decision in Gobitis that said he should be more sensitive to the protection of minorities due to his Jewish heritage. Frankfurter's dissent continued, “Were my purely personal attitudes relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the generally libertarian views in the Court's opinion . . . But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic.”
Having responded to his critics and the Court's reversal on a personal level, he now responded on a judicial one, with the remainder of his opinion focusing on judicial restraint. “As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution.... It can never be emphasized too much that one's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one's duty on the bench.”
Frankfurter continued, arguing that if the Court is frequently striking down laws it is circumventing the democratic process, since the Court cannot work to reach a compromise. It either strikes down a law or lets it stand; it cannot simply modify or qualify a law as a legislature can.
Finally Frankfurter rejected Justice Stone's rational basis test that Stone laid out in United States v. Carolene Products Co.. Instead Frankfurter focused on his belief that there were no provisions within the constitution that occupied a “preferred position” over others.
Subsequent history[edit]
The majority opinion in Barnette is considered one of the Court's greatest and most sweeping statements about the fundamental freedoms established by the Bill of Rights. After Barnette, the Court began to turn away from the belief-action doctrine altogether, creating religious exemption for believers of different creeds. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), for example, the Court upheld a Seventh-day Adventist's claim to unemployment benefits even though she declined to make herself available to work on Saturday (her Sabbath) as the law required. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court upheld the right of Amish parents not to send their children to public schools past the eighth grade.
At 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Justice Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, Supreme Court law clerks from that Court were on a panel with the two eponymous Barnettes. Just as she and her sister had in 1942, Gathie Barnette Edmonds noted that her own son was also sent to the principal's office for not saluting the flag.[5]
See also[edit]
Wooley v. Maynard
Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Flag Salute Cases", Historic U.S. Court Cases by John W. Johnson, ©2001, Routledge, page 953, "Though the Flag Salute Cases are generally seen as involving freedom of religion, that issue is virtually absent from Jackson's majority opinion. He accepted, without question, that the Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely held beliefs which made it impossible for them to conscientiously salute the flag. But Jackson did not offer any analysis of the importance of that belief or even of the role of religious freedom in striking down the mandatory flag salute. Rather than grounding his opinion in terms of freedom of religion, Jackson analyzed the case as one of freedom of speech and expression." Online
2.Jump up ^ "Article: Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 770-771, from April 28, 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York:
Moderator: What was your parents’ decision about how to handle this situation: The school has a mandatory flag salute, thanks to the State Education Department regulation, and you have your religious belief?
[Gathie Barnette] Edmonds: When we went home, of course, they understood and they said not to worry about it. And our uncle helped us get a lawyer, Mr. Horace Meldahl in Charleston, who was a very understanding person, a nice person. He told us that we had to go back to school every morning for a while.
Moderator: Why was that?
Edmonds: So they wouldn’t fine our dad or put him in jail.
[Marie Barnette] Snodgrass: So they couldn’t say we were just being truant. And so we went every morning and stayed until the flag salute, and they’d tell us to go home. It was fortunate that we lived fairly close—we didn’t have a long distance to go.
Moderator: And that was the end of the school day for you?
Edmonds: Yes. Once the truant officer came and asked my mother why we weren’t in school, and she could say, “Well, we sent ‘em and they sent ‘em home.” So that kind of took, you know, the edge off of them. Our parents didn’t keep us home.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c Manwaring, Render Unto Caesar
4.Jump up ^ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 (US 1943).
5.Jump up ^ "Article: Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 792 (38/42), from April 28, 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, "[The older of the two Barnett girls, Gathie Barnett] Edmonds: ...I remember when my older son was sent to the office for not saluting the flag. The principal came back and said your teacher obviously doesn’t remember the Supreme Court decision."
Further reading[edit]
Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 428–436. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
Irons, Peter H. (1999). A People’s History of the Supreme Court. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
Kommers, Donald P.; Finn, John E.; Jacobsohn, Gary J. (2004). American Constitutional Law. Vol. 2 (2nd edition ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-2688-7.
Sandmann, Warren (2003). "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 100–115. ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Text of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia  Cornell LII
First Amendment Library entry on West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett[dead link]
What We Owe Jehovah's Witnesses, by Sarah Barringer Gordon, April/May 2011 American History magazine; article on Barnette's effects on Constitutional Law.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: 1943 in education
1943 in religion
1943 in United States case law
1943 in West Virginia
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Education in West Virginia
Flag controversies in the United States
Legal history of West Virginia
Pledge of Allegiance
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States education case law
United States Free Speech Clause case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 May 2015, at 18:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette









Witmer v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Wiki letter w.svg
 

Witmer v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name
'
Citations
348 U.S. 375 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375 (1955),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held a draft board's rejection of Jehovah's Witness claim of conscientious objector status as lacking sincerity.


Contents  [hide]
1 Introduction
2 Prior history
3 Facts of the case
4 Decision of the Court 4.1 Majority decision
4.2 Minority opinions
5 Effects of the decision
6 Critical response
7 Subsequent history
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

Introduction[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Prior history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Facts of the case[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Decision of the Court[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
Majority decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Minority opinions[edit]
Effects of the decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Critical response[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Subsequent history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 348 U.S. 375 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




Stub icon This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: Conscientious objection
1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States military case law
1955 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
United States Supreme Court stubs










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witmer_v._United_States









Witmer v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Wiki letter w.svg
 

Witmer v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name
'
Citations
348 U.S. 375 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II


Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375 (1955),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held a draft board's rejection of Jehovah's Witness claim of conscientious objector status as lacking sincerity.


Contents  [hide]
1 Introduction
2 Prior history
3 Facts of the case
4 Decision of the Court 4.1 Majority decision
4.2 Minority opinions
5 Effects of the decision
6 Critical response
7 Subsequent history
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

Introduction[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Prior history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Facts of the case[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Decision of the Court[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
Majority decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Minority opinions[edit]
Effects of the decision[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Critical response[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
Subsequent history[edit]
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 348 U.S. 375 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]



Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




Stub icon This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: Conscientious objection
1955 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States military case law
1955 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
United States Supreme Court stubs










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2015, at 00:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witmer_v._United_States








Wooley v. Maynard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Wooley v. Maynard
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 29, 1976
 Decided April 20, 1977

Full case name
Neal R. Wooley v. George Maynard
Citations
430 U.S. 705 (more)
97 S. Ct. 1428; 51 L. Ed. 2d 752; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 75

Prior history
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Argument
Oral argument
Holding
New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display a state motto that went against an individual's morality upon their vehicle license plates.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger


Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens


Case opinions

Majority
Burger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, White (in part)
Dissent
White (in part), joined by Blackmun, and Rehnquist
Dissent
Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Facts of the case
3 Prior history
4 Decision of the court 4.1 Dissents
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Background[edit]
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or Die."[2] Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] ... the figures or letters on any number plate."[3] The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.[4]
Facts of the case[edit]
George Maynard and his wife, followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
Prior history[edit]
On December 6, 1974, Maynard appeared pro se in Lebanon District Court to answer the charge. After waiving his right to counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to explain his religious objections to the motto. “[B]y religious training and belief, I believe my ‘government’- Jehovah’s Kingdom – offers everlasting life. It would be contrary to that belief to give up my life for the state, even if it meant living in bondage." "[T]his slogan is directly at odds with my deeply held religious convictions…. I also disagree with the motto on political grounds. I believe that life is more precious than freedom.” [5]The state trial judge expressed sympathy for Maynard's situation, but considered himself bound by the authority of State v. Hoskin to hold Maynard guilty. A $25 fine was imposed, but was suspended during "good behavior."
On December 28, 1974, Maynard was again charged with violating 262:27-c. He appeared in court on January 31, 1975, and again chose to represent himself; he was found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County House of Corrections. The court suspended this jail sentence but ordered Maynard to also pay the $25 fine for the first offense. Maynard informed the court that, as a matter of conscience, he refused to pay the two fines. The court thereupon sentenced him to jail for a period of 15 days. He served the full sentence.
Prior to trial on the second offense Maynard was charged with yet a third violation of 262:27-c on January 3, 1975. He appeared on this complaint on the same day as for the second offense, and was, again, found guilty. This conviction was "continued for sentence" so that Maynard received no punishment in addition to the 15 days.
On March 4, 1975, the Maynards sued in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against enforcement of N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c, 263:1, insofar as these required displaying the state motto on their vehicle license plates, and made it a criminal offense to obscure the motto. On March 11, 1975, the single District Judge issued a temporary restraining order against further arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards. Because the appellees sought an injunction against a state statute on grounds of its unconstitutionality, a three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281. Following a hearing on the merits, the District Court entered an order enjoining the State "from arresting and prosecuting [the Maynards] at any time in the future for covering over that portion of their license plates that contains the motto 'Live Free or Die.'"
The governor of New Hampshire chose to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and it accepted the case.
Decision of the court[edit]
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates. Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster ... an idea they find morally objectionable." The state's interest in motor vehicle identification could be achieved by "less drastic means," and its interest in fostering state pride was not viewpoint-neutral.
Dissents[edit]
Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Blackmun joined. Rehnquist wrote that

For First Amendment principles to be implicated, the State must place the citizen in the position of either apparently or actually "asserting as true" the message. This was the focus of Barnette, and clearly distinguishes this case from that one.
In holding that the New Hampshire statute does not run afoul of our holding in Barnette, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ... aptly articulated why there is no required affirmation of belief in this case:
"The defendants' membership in a class of persons required to display plates bearing the State motto carries no implication and is subject to no requirement that they endorse that motto or profess to adopt it as matter of belief."
As found by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Hoskin, there is nothing in state law which precludes appellees from displaying their disagreement with the state motto as long as the methods used do not obscure the license plates. Thus appellees could place on their bumper a conspicuous bumper sticker explaining in no uncertain terms that they do not profess the motto "Live Free or Die" and that they violently disagree with the connotations of that motto. Since any implication that they affirm the motto can be so easily displaced, I cannot agree that the state statutory system for motor vehicle identification and tourist promotion may be invalidated under the fiction that appellees are unconstitutionally forced to affirm, or profess belief in, the state motto.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 430 U.S. 705 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2.Jump up ^ 1 N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 263:1 (Supp. 1975)
3.Jump up ^ N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c (Supp. 1975)
4.Jump up ^ State v. Hoskin, 112 N. H. 332, 295 A. 2d 454 (1972)
5.Jump up ^ http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wooley.html
External links[edit]
Text of Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia
Oyez: Wooley v. Maynard


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1977 in United States case law
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Legal history of New Hampshire
Vehicle registration plates of the United States
State mottos of the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1977 in religion


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 March 2015, at 12:59.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard








Wooley v. Maynard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Wooley v. Maynard
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 29, 1976
 Decided April 20, 1977

Full case name
Neal R. Wooley v. George Maynard
Citations
430 U.S. 705 (more)
97 S. Ct. 1428; 51 L. Ed. 2d 752; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 75

Prior history
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Argument
Oral argument
Holding
New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display a state motto that went against an individual's morality upon their vehicle license plates.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger


Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens


Case opinions

Majority
Burger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, White (in part)
Dissent
White (in part), joined by Blackmun, and Rehnquist
Dissent
Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Facts of the case
3 Prior history
4 Decision of the court 4.1 Dissents
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Background[edit]
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or Die."[2] Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] ... the figures or letters on any number plate."[3] The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.[4]
Facts of the case[edit]
George Maynard and his wife, followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
Prior history[edit]
On December 6, 1974, Maynard appeared pro se in Lebanon District Court to answer the charge. After waiving his right to counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to explain his religious objections to the motto. “[B]y religious training and belief, I believe my ‘government’- Jehovah’s Kingdom – offers everlasting life. It would be contrary to that belief to give up my life for the state, even if it meant living in bondage." "[T]his slogan is directly at odds with my deeply held religious convictions…. I also disagree with the motto on political grounds. I believe that life is more precious than freedom.” [5]The state trial judge expressed sympathy for Maynard's situation, but considered himself bound by the authority of State v. Hoskin to hold Maynard guilty. A $25 fine was imposed, but was suspended during "good behavior."
On December 28, 1974, Maynard was again charged with violating 262:27-c. He appeared in court on January 31, 1975, and again chose to represent himself; he was found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County House of Corrections. The court suspended this jail sentence but ordered Maynard to also pay the $25 fine for the first offense. Maynard informed the court that, as a matter of conscience, he refused to pay the two fines. The court thereupon sentenced him to jail for a period of 15 days. He served the full sentence.
Prior to trial on the second offense Maynard was charged with yet a third violation of 262:27-c on January 3, 1975. He appeared on this complaint on the same day as for the second offense, and was, again, found guilty. This conviction was "continued for sentence" so that Maynard received no punishment in addition to the 15 days.
On March 4, 1975, the Maynards sued in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against enforcement of N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c, 263:1, insofar as these required displaying the state motto on their vehicle license plates, and made it a criminal offense to obscure the motto. On March 11, 1975, the single District Judge issued a temporary restraining order against further arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards. Because the appellees sought an injunction against a state statute on grounds of its unconstitutionality, a three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281. Following a hearing on the merits, the District Court entered an order enjoining the State "from arresting and prosecuting [the Maynards] at any time in the future for covering over that portion of their license plates that contains the motto 'Live Free or Die.'"
The governor of New Hampshire chose to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and it accepted the case.
Decision of the court[edit]
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates. Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster ... an idea they find morally objectionable." The state's interest in motor vehicle identification could be achieved by "less drastic means," and its interest in fostering state pride was not viewpoint-neutral.
Dissents[edit]
Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Blackmun joined. Rehnquist wrote that

For First Amendment principles to be implicated, the State must place the citizen in the position of either apparently or actually "asserting as true" the message. This was the focus of Barnette, and clearly distinguishes this case from that one.
In holding that the New Hampshire statute does not run afoul of our holding in Barnette, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ... aptly articulated why there is no required affirmation of belief in this case:
"The defendants' membership in a class of persons required to display plates bearing the State motto carries no implication and is subject to no requirement that they endorse that motto or profess to adopt it as matter of belief."
As found by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Hoskin, there is nothing in state law which precludes appellees from displaying their disagreement with the state motto as long as the methods used do not obscure the license plates. Thus appellees could place on their bumper a conspicuous bumper sticker explaining in no uncertain terms that they do not profess the motto "Live Free or Die" and that they violently disagree with the connotations of that motto. Since any implication that they affirm the motto can be so easily displaced, I cannot agree that the state statutory system for motor vehicle identification and tourist promotion may be invalidated under the fiction that appellees are unconstitutionally forced to affirm, or profess belief in, the state motto.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 430 U.S. 705 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2.Jump up ^ 1 N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 263:1 (Supp. 1975)
3.Jump up ^ N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c (Supp. 1975)
4.Jump up ^ State v. Hoskin, 112 N. H. 332, 295 A. 2d 454 (1972)
5.Jump up ^ http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wooley.html
External links[edit]
Text of Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia
Oyez: Wooley v. Maynard


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States First Amendment case law




[show] 
Establishment Clause

























































[show] 
Free Exercise Clause























[hide] 
Freedom of speech (portal)




Sedition and
 imminent danger
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·
 Schenck v. United States (1919) ·
 Abrams v. United States (1919) ·
 Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) ·
 Gitlow v. New York (1925) ·
 Whitney v. California (1927) ·
 Dennis v. United States (1951) ·
 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955, 1961) ·
 Yates v. United States (1957) ·
 Bond v. Floyd (1966) ·
 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 

False speech
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
 

Fighting words and
 the heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ·
 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ·
 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) ·
 Feiner v. New York (1951) ·
 Gregory v. Chicago (1969) ·
 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) ·
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ·
 Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
 

Freedom of assembly
 and public forums
Hague v. CIO (1939) ·
 Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) ·
 Martin v. Struthers (1943) ·
 Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) ·
 Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) ·
 Cox v. Louisiana (1965) ·
 Brown v. Louisiana (1966) ·
 Adderley v. Florida (1966) ·
 Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) ·
 Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) ·
 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) ·
 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) ·
 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) ·
 Hill v. Colorado (2000) ·
 McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
 

Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California (1931) ·
 United States v. O'Brien (1968) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 Smith v. Goguen (1974) ·
 Texas v. Johnson (1989) ·
 United States v. Eichman (1990) ·
 Virginia v. Black (2003)
 

Compelled speech
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) ·
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) ·
 Wooley v. Maynard (1977) ·
 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) ·
 Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) ·
 Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012) ·
 Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)
 

Loyalty oaths
American Communications Association v. Douds (1950) ·
 Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) ·
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) ·
 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1965) ·
 Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
 

School speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ·
 Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) ·
 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) ·
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ·
 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ·
 Morse v. Frederick (2007)
 

Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) ·
 United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ·
 Roth v. United States (1957) ·
 One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) ·
 Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) ·
 MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) ·
 Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ·
 Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) ·
 Redrup v. New York (1967) ·
 Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ·
 Stanley v. Georgia (1969) ·
 Cohen v. California (1971) ·
 United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) ·
 Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) ·
 Miller v. California (1973) ·
 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) ·
 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) ·
 Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) ·
 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) ·
 Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) ·
 New York v. Ferber (1982) ·
 American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) ·
 Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) ·
 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ·
 United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) ·
 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) ·
 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) ·
 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) ·
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) ·
 Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) ·
 United States v. Williams (2008) ·
 FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) ·
 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) ·
 United States v. Stevens (2010) ·
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
 

Public employees
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ·
 Perry v. Sindermann (1972) ·
 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) ·
 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) ·
 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) ·
 Connick v. Myers (1983) ·
 Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ·
 Waters v. Churchill (1994) ·
 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ·
 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
 

Hatch Act
 and similar laws
Ex parte Curtis (1882) ·
 United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ·
 United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) ·
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
 

Licensing and
 restriction of speech
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) ·
 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ·
 Freedman v. Maryland (1965) ·
 Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) ·
 Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
 

Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ·
 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) ·
 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) ·
 Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) ·
 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) ·
 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) ·
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ·
 Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) ·
 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) ·
 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) ·
 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) ·
 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
 

Campaign finance and
 political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ·
 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ·
 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) ·
 California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) ·
 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) ·
 Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983) ·
 FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) ·
 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) ·
 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ·
 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) ·
 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) ·
 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) ·
 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) ·
 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) ·
 McConnell v. FEC (2003) ·
 FEC v. Beaumont (2003) ·
 Randall v. Sorrell (2006) ·
 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ·
 Davis v. FEC (2008) ·
 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ·
 McComish v. Bennett (2011) ·
 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) ·
 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
 





[show] 
Freedom of the press



























































[show] 
Freedom of association













  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1977 in United States case law
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Legal history of New Hampshire
Vehicle registration plates of the United States
State mottos of the United States
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
1977 in religion


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 March 2015, at 12:59.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard