JW Wikipedia pages

Busey v. District of Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Busey v. District of Columbia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued June 1, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
Busey, et al. v. District of Columbia
Citations
319 U.S. 579 (more)
Holding
District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded.
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
Per curiam.
Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for unlicensed selling of magazines on public sidewalks.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319
Jones v. Opelika
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 319 U.S. 579 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
Further reading[edit]
Barber, Hollis W. (1947). "Religious Liberty v. Police Power: Jehovah's Witnesses". American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 41 (2): 226–247. doi:10.2307/1950708. JSTOR 1950708.





[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
















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




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




  


Categories: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
United States First Amendment case law
1943 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
United States Supreme Court stubs
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 00:13.
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/Busey_v._District_of_Columbia









Busey v. District of Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Busey v. District of Columbia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued June 1, 1943
 Decided June 14, 1943

Full case name
Busey, et al. v. District of Columbia
Citations
319 U.S. 579 (more)
Holding
District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded.
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
Per curiam.
Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for unlicensed selling of magazines on public sidewalks.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319
Jones v. Opelika
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 319 U.S. 579 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
Further reading[edit]
Barber, Hollis W. (1947). "Religious Liberty v. Police Power: Jehovah's Witnesses". American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 41 (2): 226–247. doi:10.2307/1950708. JSTOR 1950708.





[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
















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




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




  


Categories: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
United States First Amendment case law
1943 in religion
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
Christianity and law in the 20th century
United States Supreme Court stubs
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 00:13.
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/Busey_v._District_of_Columbia








Cantwell v. Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cantwell v. Connecticut
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 1940
 Decided May 20, 1940

Full case name
Cantwell et al. v. State of Connecticut
Citations
310 U.S. 296 (more)
60 S. Ct. 900; 84 L. Ed. 1213; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 591; 128 A.L.R. 1352

Prior history
126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533; Appeal from and certiorari from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Subsequent history
None
Holding
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


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


Case opinions

Majority
Roberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const., amends. I and XIV
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated or applied to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Prior history
2 Issue
3 Opinion of the Court
4 Significance
5 See also
6 Further reading
7 External links

Background[edit]
A Connecticut statute required licenses for those soliciting for religious or charitable purposes. The statute was an early type of consumer protection law: it required the Secretary, before issuing a certificate permitting solicitation, to determine whether the cause was "a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy" and whether the solicitation "conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity."
Upon determination of the cause's legitimacy, a solicitation certificate would be issued.
Jesse Cantwell (a Jehovah's Witness) and his two sons, Newton and Russel, were proselytizing in a heavily Roman Catholic neighborhood in New Haven, Connecticut. The Cantwells were going door to door, with books and pamphlets and a portable phonograph with sets of records. Each record contained a description of one of the books. One such book was "Enemies", which was an attack on organized religion in general and especially the Roman Catholic Church. Jesse Cantwell stopped two men on the street and requested permission to play a phonograph. They gave permission, and after hearing the recording, the two citizens were incensed; though they wanted to physically assault the Cantwells, they restrained themselves.
Cantwell and his two sons were arrested and charged with: (1) violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate from the secretary of the public welfare council ("Secretary") before soliciting funds from the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
The Cantwells stated they did not get a license because they did not believe the government had the right to determine whether the Witnesses were a religion. They argued that the statute denied the trio their due process rights under the 14th Amendment, and it also denied them their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religious expression.
Prior history[edit]
The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with the Cantwells, finding that the statute was an effort by the state of Connecticut to protect the public against fraud, and as such, the statute was constitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three on the statutory charge and affirmed one son's conviction of inciting a breach of the peace, but remanded the inciting a breach of peace charge against the other two for a new trial.
Issue[edit]
The issue presented before the court was whether the state's action in convicting the Cantwells with inciting a breach of the peace and violating the solicitation statute violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Justice Owen Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion that "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."
In general the court hold with respect to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and their embodiment in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." 310 U.S. 296, 303-304.
Significance[edit]
Before the Cantwell decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. But the Supreme Court in Cantwell said it did, thereby ushering in an era of greatly strengthened religious freedom.
This case incorporated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, thereby applying it to the states and protecting free exercise of religion from intrusive state action. The Establishment Clause was incorporated seven years later in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court Cases
Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Further reading[edit]
Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 420–426. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cantwell v. Connecticut

^ 310 U.S. 296 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
"Religion: Freedom of Faith", Time magazine, April 8, 1940, contemporaneous article on the case, Online


[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
United States free exercise of religion case law
Incorporation case law
1940 in United States case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
1940 in Connecticut
Legal history of Connecticut
History of New Haven, Connecticut
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes 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 00:13.
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/Cantwell_v._Connecticut








Cantwell v. Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cantwell v. Connecticut
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 1940
 Decided May 20, 1940

Full case name
Cantwell et al. v. State of Connecticut
Citations
310 U.S. 296 (more)
60 S. Ct. 900; 84 L. Ed. 1213; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 591; 128 A.L.R. 1352

Prior history
126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533; Appeal from and certiorari from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Subsequent history
None
Holding
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


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


Case opinions

Majority
Roberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const., amends. I and XIV
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated or applied to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Prior history
2 Issue
3 Opinion of the Court
4 Significance
5 See also
6 Further reading
7 External links

Background[edit]
A Connecticut statute required licenses for those soliciting for religious or charitable purposes. The statute was an early type of consumer protection law: it required the Secretary, before issuing a certificate permitting solicitation, to determine whether the cause was "a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy" and whether the solicitation "conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity."
Upon determination of the cause's legitimacy, a solicitation certificate would be issued.
Jesse Cantwell (a Jehovah's Witness) and his two sons, Newton and Russel, were proselytizing in a heavily Roman Catholic neighborhood in New Haven, Connecticut. The Cantwells were going door to door, with books and pamphlets and a portable phonograph with sets of records. Each record contained a description of one of the books. One such book was "Enemies", which was an attack on organized religion in general and especially the Roman Catholic Church. Jesse Cantwell stopped two men on the street and requested permission to play a phonograph. They gave permission, and after hearing the recording, the two citizens were incensed; though they wanted to physically assault the Cantwells, they restrained themselves.
Cantwell and his two sons were arrested and charged with: (1) violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate from the secretary of the public welfare council ("Secretary") before soliciting funds from the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
The Cantwells stated they did not get a license because they did not believe the government had the right to determine whether the Witnesses were a religion. They argued that the statute denied the trio their due process rights under the 14th Amendment, and it also denied them their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religious expression.
Prior history[edit]
The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with the Cantwells, finding that the statute was an effort by the state of Connecticut to protect the public against fraud, and as such, the statute was constitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three on the statutory charge and affirmed one son's conviction of inciting a breach of the peace, but remanded the inciting a breach of peace charge against the other two for a new trial.
Issue[edit]
The issue presented before the court was whether the state's action in convicting the Cantwells with inciting a breach of the peace and violating the solicitation statute violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Justice Owen Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion that "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."
In general the court hold with respect to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and their embodiment in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." 310 U.S. 296, 303-304.
Significance[edit]
Before the Cantwell decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. But the Supreme Court in Cantwell said it did, thereby ushering in an era of greatly strengthened religious freedom.
This case incorporated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, thereby applying it to the states and protecting free exercise of religion from intrusive state action. The Establishment Clause was incorporated seven years later in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court Cases
Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Further reading[edit]
Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 420–426. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cantwell v. Connecticut

^ 310 U.S. 296 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
"Religion: Freedom of Faith", Time magazine, April 8, 1940, contemporaneous article on the case, Online


[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
United States free exercise of religion case law
Incorporation case law
1940 in United States case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
American Civil Liberties Union litigation
1940 in Connecticut
Legal history of Connecticut
History of New Haven, Connecticut
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes 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 00:13.
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/Cantwell_v._Connecticut








Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1942
 Decided March 9, 1942

Full case name
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
Citations
315 U.S. 568 (more)
62 S. Ct. 766; 86 L. Ed. 1031; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 851

Prior history
Appeal from the New Hampshire Supreme Court
Holding
A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


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


Case opinions

Majority
Murphy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Constitution amend. I; NH P. L., c. 378, § 2 (1941)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Alternate views
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links

Background[edit]
In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Upon seeing the town marshal (who had returned to the scene after warning Chaplinsky earlier to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion), Chaplinsky attacked the marshal verbally. He was then arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity.
For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."
Chaplinsky appealed the fine he was assessed, claiming that the law was "vague" and that it infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.
Alternate views[edit]
Some modern legal historians have disputed the generally accepted version of events that led to Chaplinsky's arrest.[1]
UCLA professor Gary Blasi's article on the topic describes the events thus: While preaching, Chaplinsky was surrounded by men who mocked Jehovah's Witnesses members' objections to saluting the flag. One man attempted to hit Chaplinsky in full view of the town marshal, who warned Chaplinsky that he was in danger but did not arrest his assailant. After the marshal left, another man produced a flagpole and attempted to impale Chaplinsky; while Chaplinsky was pinned against a car by the pole, other members of the crowd struck him. A police officer arrived and, rather than dispersing the crowd, took Chaplinsky into custody.
En route to the station, the officer, as well as members of the crowd, insulted Chaplinsky and his religion. Chaplinsky responded by calling the town marshal, who had returned to assist the officer, a "damn fascist and a racketeer" and was arrested for the use of offensive language in public.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the slanderous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[2]
Murphy wrote:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 315
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Blasi, Vincent; Shiffrin, Seana (2009). "The Story of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: The Pledge of Allegiance and the Freedom of Thought" (PDF). In Dorf, Michael C. Constitutional Law Stories (2nd ed.). Foundation Press. pp. 409–53 [433]. ISBN 978-1-59941-169-9.
2.Jump up ^ See Sullivan, Harold J. (2005). Civil Rights and Liberties: Provocative Questions and Evolving Answers. 2nd ed. N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2005 at 24.
Further reading[edit]
Herbeck, Dale (2003), "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire", in Parker, Richard A., Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, pp. 85–99, ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.
Caine, Burton (2004). "The Trouble with 'Fighting Words': Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Is a Threat to First Amendment Values and Should be Overruled". Marquette Law Review 88 (3).
Peters, Shawn Francis (1999). "Re-hearing 'Fighting Words': Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in Retrospect". Journal of Supreme Court History 24 (3): 282–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5818.1999.tb00168.x.
Sumner, L.W. (2005), "Hate crimes, literature, and speech", in Frey, R.G.; Heath Wellman, Christopher, A companion to applied ethics, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Oxford, UK Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 89–101, doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch11, ISBN 9781405133456.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Text of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia
"First Amendment Library entry on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire".


[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: 1942 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
Legal history of New Hampshire
Rochester, New Hampshire
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 13 March 2015, at 00:13.
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/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire








Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1942
 Decided March 9, 1942

Full case name
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
Citations
315 U.S. 568 (more)
62 S. Ct. 766; 86 L. Ed. 1031; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 851

Prior history
Appeal from the New Hampshire Supreme Court
Holding
A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
Court membership


Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone


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


Case opinions

Majority
Murphy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Constitution amend. I; NH P. L., c. 378, § 2 (1941)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background 1.1 Alternate views
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links

Background[edit]
In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Upon seeing the town marshal (who had returned to the scene after warning Chaplinsky earlier to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion), Chaplinsky attacked the marshal verbally. He was then arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity.
For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."
Chaplinsky appealed the fine he was assessed, claiming that the law was "vague" and that it infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.
Alternate views[edit]
Some modern legal historians have disputed the generally accepted version of events that led to Chaplinsky's arrest.[1]
UCLA professor Gary Blasi's article on the topic describes the events thus: While preaching, Chaplinsky was surrounded by men who mocked Jehovah's Witnesses members' objections to saluting the flag. One man attempted to hit Chaplinsky in full view of the town marshal, who warned Chaplinsky that he was in danger but did not arrest his assailant. After the marshal left, another man produced a flagpole and attempted to impale Chaplinsky; while Chaplinsky was pinned against a car by the pole, other members of the crowd struck him. A police officer arrived and, rather than dispersing the crowd, took Chaplinsky into custody.
En route to the station, the officer, as well as members of the crowd, insulted Chaplinsky and his religion. Chaplinsky responded by calling the town marshal, who had returned to assist the officer, a "damn fascist and a racketeer" and was arrested for the use of offensive language in public.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the slanderous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[2]
Murphy wrote:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 315
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Blasi, Vincent; Shiffrin, Seana (2009). "The Story of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: The Pledge of Allegiance and the Freedom of Thought" (PDF). In Dorf, Michael C. Constitutional Law Stories (2nd ed.). Foundation Press. pp. 409–53 [433]. ISBN 978-1-59941-169-9.
2.Jump up ^ See Sullivan, Harold J. (2005). Civil Rights and Liberties: Provocative Questions and Evolving Answers. 2nd ed. N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2005 at 24.
Further reading[edit]
Herbeck, Dale (2003), "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire", in Parker, Richard A., Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, pp. 85–99, ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.
Caine, Burton (2004). "The Trouble with 'Fighting Words': Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Is a Threat to First Amendment Values and Should be Overruled". Marquette Law Review 88 (3).
Peters, Shawn Francis (1999). "Re-hearing 'Fighting Words': Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in Retrospect". Journal of Supreme Court History 24 (3): 282–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5818.1999.tb00168.x.
Sumner, L.W. (2005), "Hate crimes, literature, and speech", in Frey, R.G.; Heath Wellman, Christopher, A companion to applied ethics, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Oxford, UK Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 89–101, doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch11, ISBN 9781405133456.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Text of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia
"First Amendment Library entry on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire".


[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: 1942 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
Legal history of New Hampshire
Rochester, New Hampshire
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 13 March 2015, at 00:13.
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/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire








Cox v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cox v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 7, 1941
 Decided March 31, 1941

Full case name
Cox, et al. v. State of New Hampshire
Citations
312 U.S. 569 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


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


Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Here, the Court held that government may require organizers of any parade or procession on public streets to have a license and pay a fee.
Sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses had assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks, displaying signs, and handing out leaflets advertising a meeting. During the march, groups of 15 to 20 people marched in single file down sidewalks in the district, interfering with normal foot travel.
In 1941, all 68 Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted in a New Hampshire municipal court for violating a state statute which prohibited parades and processions on public streets without a license. The defendants claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.


Contents  [hide]
1 Decision of the Court
2 Effects of the decision
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Decision of the Court[edit]
Does the New Hampshire state statute that prohibits unlicensed parades violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that a municipality’s ability to impose regulations that create order and safety for its populace does not infringe on the civil liberties of its people. Because the statute in question only grants a town selectman or licensing board the limited authority to ensure that a proposed parade will not interfere with the proper uses of streets, there is not opportunity for it to wield undue or arbitrary power that would infringe on constitutional rights. The Court also held that there was no evidence that the statute had been administered unfairly in this case.
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012)
Effects of the decision[edit]
Prior to the decision in Cox, the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, numerous ordinances imposing permit requirements on expressive activity in public places, such as streets and parks, because the ordinances gave government officials unlimited discretion whether to issue the permits. After Cox, local governments were allowed to regulate competing uses of public forums by using a permit scheme to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally.
The decision established the right of local governments to require a permit to conduct a parade or procession upon a public street. However, permit decisions had to be made according to uniform, nondiscriminatory standards based upon public convenience and safety to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment. Because governments face greater costs in policing and overseeing parades, they are allowed to pass some expenses on to the groups conducting the events - and hence also have some regulatory power over the events.
Requiring licenses was thus found to be entirely consistent with also allowing time and place restrictions to prevent a public inconvenience. Validating permit requirements for parades meant that local governments received advance notice of parades allowing them the opportunity to plan policing activities to minimize disorder and inconvenience to passersby.
In addition, Cox allowed local governments to give a different degree of protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to those who communicated ideas by patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways and those who communicated ideas by pure speech. Permit systems were deemed constitutionally valid so long as the discretion of the issuing official was limited to questions of times, places, and manners, and was not based on the content of the message. The reasonable time, place and manner restriction of Cox was subsequently applied to government attempts to regulate a wide range of religious, social, economic, and political activity.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 312
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 312 U.S. 569 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cox v. New Hampshire

  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1941 in United States case law
Manchester, New Hampshire
Legal history of New Hampshire
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes 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 1 May 2015, at 21:09.
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/Cox_v._New_Hampshire








Cox v. New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cox v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 7, 1941
 Decided March 31, 1941

Full case name
Cox, et al. v. State of New Hampshire
Citations
312 U.S. 569 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes


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


Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Here, the Court held that government may require organizers of any parade or procession on public streets to have a license and pay a fee.
Sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses had assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks, displaying signs, and handing out leaflets advertising a meeting. During the march, groups of 15 to 20 people marched in single file down sidewalks in the district, interfering with normal foot travel.
In 1941, all 68 Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted in a New Hampshire municipal court for violating a state statute which prohibited parades and processions on public streets without a license. The defendants claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.


Contents  [hide]
1 Decision of the Court
2 Effects of the decision
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Decision of the Court[edit]
Does the New Hampshire state statute that prohibits unlicensed parades violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that a municipality’s ability to impose regulations that create order and safety for its populace does not infringe on the civil liberties of its people. Because the statute in question only grants a town selectman or licensing board the limited authority to ensure that a proposed parade will not interfere with the proper uses of streets, there is not opportunity for it to wield undue or arbitrary power that would infringe on constitutional rights. The Court also held that there was no evidence that the statute had been administered unfairly in this case.
Wiki letter w.svg This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012)
Effects of the decision[edit]
Prior to the decision in Cox, the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, numerous ordinances imposing permit requirements on expressive activity in public places, such as streets and parks, because the ordinances gave government officials unlimited discretion whether to issue the permits. After Cox, local governments were allowed to regulate competing uses of public forums by using a permit scheme to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally.
The decision established the right of local governments to require a permit to conduct a parade or procession upon a public street. However, permit decisions had to be made according to uniform, nondiscriminatory standards based upon public convenience and safety to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment. Because governments face greater costs in policing and overseeing parades, they are allowed to pass some expenses on to the groups conducting the events - and hence also have some regulatory power over the events.
Requiring licenses was thus found to be entirely consistent with also allowing time and place restrictions to prevent a public inconvenience. Validating permit requirements for parades meant that local governments received advance notice of parades allowing them the opportunity to plan policing activities to minimize disorder and inconvenience to passersby.
In addition, Cox allowed local governments to give a different degree of protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to those who communicated ideas by patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways and those who communicated ideas by pure speech. Permit systems were deemed constitutionally valid so long as the discretion of the issuing official was limited to questions of times, places, and manners, and was not based on the content of the message. The reasonable time, place and manner restriction of Cox was subsequently applied to government attempts to regulate a wide range of religious, social, economic, and political activity.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 312
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 312 U.S. 569 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cox v. New Hampshire

  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
United States Free Speech Clause case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1941 in United States case law
Manchester, New Hampshire
Legal history of New Hampshire
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes 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 1 May 2015, at 21:09.
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/Cox_v._New_Hampshire








Cox v. United States (1947)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cox v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 14–15, 1947
 Decided November 24, 1947

Full case name
Cox v. United States
Citations
332 U.S. 442 (more)
68 S. Ct. 115; 92 L. Ed. 59; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 1586

Prior history
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
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
Reed, joined by Jackson, Vinson, Burton, Frankfurter
Dissent
Douglas, joined by Black
Dissent
Murphy, joined by Rutledge
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cox v. United States (332 U.S. 442)

Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442 (1947),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that courts have only limited scope of review over a Selective Service Board's classification of a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister.
Justice Reed delivered the opinion. Justice Murphy, in dissent said "the mere fact that they spent less than full time in ministerial activities affords no reasonable basis for implying a non-ministerial status."[2]
A rehearing was denied on February 12, 1948.[2]
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 332
Mora v. McNamara
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 332 U.S. 442 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Written Opinion
External links[edit]
Written Opinion



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: United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
1947 in United States case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1947 in religion
Conscientious objection
United States military case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson 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 00:13.
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/Cox_v._United_States_(1947)








Cox v. United States (1947)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cox v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 14–15, 1947
 Decided November 24, 1947

Full case name
Cox v. United States
Citations
332 U.S. 442 (more)
68 S. Ct. 115; 92 L. Ed. 59; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 1586

Prior history
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
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
Reed, joined by Jackson, Vinson, Burton, Frankfurter
Dissent
Douglas, joined by Black
Dissent
Murphy, joined by Rutledge
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Cox v. United States (332 U.S. 442)

Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442 (1947),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that courts have only limited scope of review over a Selective Service Board's classification of a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister.
Justice Reed delivered the opinion. Justice Murphy, in dissent said "the mere fact that they spent less than full time in ministerial activities affords no reasonable basis for implying a non-ministerial status."[2]
A rehearing was denied on February 12, 1948.[2]
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 332
Mora v. McNamara
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 332 U.S. 442 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Written Opinion
External links[edit]
Written Opinion



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: United States Supreme Court cases
United States free exercise of religion case law
1947 in United States case law
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1947 in religion
Conscientious objection
United States military case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson 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 00:13.
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/Cox_v._United_States_(1947)








Dickinson v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Dickinson v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 21, 1953
 Decided November 30, 1953

Full case name
'
Citations
346 U.S. 389 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


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
Clark
Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 (1953),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held there was no basis for denying a petitioner's (a Jehovah's Witness) claim to ministerial exemption from military service, and his conviction for refusing to submit to his local board's induction order was reversed.


Contents  [hide]
1 Decision of the Court
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court ruled that classification as minister is not available to all members of a sect notwithstanding doctrine that all are ministers; but part-time secular work does not, without more, disqualify member from satisfying the ministerial exemption.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 346
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 346 U.S. 389 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]


[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













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: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1953 in religion
Conscription in the United States
Conscription law
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 00:13.
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/Dickinson_v._United_States









Dickinson v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Dickinson v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 21, 1953
 Decided November 30, 1953

Full case name
'
Citations
346 U.S. 389 (more)
Court membership


Chief Justice
Earl Warren


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
Clark
Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 (1953),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held there was no basis for denying a petitioner's (a Jehovah's Witness) claim to ministerial exemption from military service, and his conviction for refusing to submit to his local board's induction order was reversed.


Contents  [hide]
1 Decision of the Court
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

Decision of the Court[edit]
Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court ruled that classification as minister is not available to all members of a sect notwithstanding doctrine that all are ministers; but part-time secular work does not, without more, disqualify member from satisfying the ministerial exemption.
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 346
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 346 U.S. 389 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
External links[edit]


[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













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: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1953 in religion
Conscription in the United States
Conscription law
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 00:13.
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/Dickinson_v._United_States









Douglas v. City of Jeannette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Douglas v. City of Jeannette
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 10-11, 1943
 Decided May 3, 1943

Full case name
Douglas v. City of Jeannette
Citations
319 U.S. 157 (more)
Holding
The ordinance as applied is held to be constitutional.
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
Stone
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses Cases", because the Supreme Court handed down rulings on these four cases related to the Jehovah's Witnesses on the same day (May 3, 1943). Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, it ruled in favor of them in the other three cases and those represent landmark decisions in the area of First Amendment constitutional law.
Facts of the case[edit]
The plaintiff in this matter was Robert L. Douglas, a Jehovah's Witness who filed suit against the Pittsburgh suburb of Jeannette, Pennsylvania in 1939. Douglas sought to enjoin against the enforcement of ordinances that prohibited him and other colleagues from distributing religious materials door-to-door without a permit.
Decision of the Court[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2009)
Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court denying equity relief on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter since no irreparable injury occurred, and that it was necessary to presume good faith by the municipality in reassessing the enforcement of statutes that had been declared unconstitutional. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, appended to the majority opinion, also touched on the First Amendment issues raised in the case.

Portal icon Pittsburgh portal
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Douglas v. City of Jeannette

1.Jump up ^ 319 U.S. 157 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.



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: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone 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 00:13.
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/Douglas_v._City_of_Jeannette








Douglas v. City of Jeannette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Douglas v. City of Jeannette
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 10-11, 1943
 Decided May 3, 1943

Full case name
Douglas v. City of Jeannette
Citations
319 U.S. 157 (more)
Holding
The ordinance as applied is held to be constitutional.
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
Stone
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses Cases", because the Supreme Court handed down rulings on these four cases related to the Jehovah's Witnesses on the same day (May 3, 1943). Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, it ruled in favor of them in the other three cases and those represent landmark decisions in the area of First Amendment constitutional law.
Facts of the case[edit]
The plaintiff in this matter was Robert L. Douglas, a Jehovah's Witness who filed suit against the Pittsburgh suburb of Jeannette, Pennsylvania in 1939. Douglas sought to enjoin against the enforcement of ordinances that prohibited him and other colleagues from distributing religious materials door-to-door without a permit.
Decision of the Court[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2009)
Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court denying equity relief on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter since no irreparable injury occurred, and that it was necessary to presume good faith by the municipality in reassessing the enforcement of statutes that had been declared unconstitutional. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, appended to the majority opinion, also touched on the First Amendment issues raised in the case.

Portal icon Pittsburgh portal
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Douglas v. City of Jeannette

1.Jump up ^ 319 U.S. 157 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.



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: 1943 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone 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 00:13.
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/Douglas_v._City_of_Jeannette








Estep v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Estep v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1945
 Decided February 4, 1946

Full case name
'
Citations
327 U.S. 114 (more)
66 S. Ct. 423; 90 L. Ed. 567; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2807

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
Douglas
Concurrence
Murphy
Concurrence
Rutledge
Concurrence
Frankfurter
Dissent
Burton, joined by Stone
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (1946),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's refusal to classify a Jehovah's Witness as minister is, after exhausting administrative remedies, subject to judicial review.
Facts of the case[edit]
Estep's local board classified him as I-A, i.e., as available for military service. Sec. 5(d) of the Selective Service Act exempts from training and service (but not from registration) "regular or duly ordained ministers of religion". Under the regulations those in that category are classified as IV-D. Estep, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, claimed that he was entitled to that classification. The local board ruled against him. He took his case to the appeal board which classified him as I-A. He then asked the State and National Directors of Selective Service to appeal to the President for him. His request was refused. The local board thereupon ordered him to report for induction. He reported at the time and place indicated. He was accepted by the Navy. But he refused to be inducted, claiming that he was exempt from service because he was an ordained minister of the gospel. He was indicted under 11 of the Act for wilfully failing and refusing to submit to induction. He sought to defend on the ground that as a Jehovah's Witness he was a minister of religion and that he had been improperly denied exemption from service, because the classifying agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to classify him as IV-D.
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Estep v. United States

1.Jump up ^ 327 U.S. 114 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
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: 1946 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
Conscription in the United States
Conscription law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1946 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 00:13.
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/Estep_v._United_States








Estep v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Estep v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1945
 Decided February 4, 1946

Full case name
'
Citations
327 U.S. 114 (more)
66 S. Ct. 423; 90 L. Ed. 567; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2807

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
Douglas
Concurrence
Murphy
Concurrence
Rutledge
Concurrence
Frankfurter
Dissent
Burton, joined by Stone
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (1946),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's refusal to classify a Jehovah's Witness as minister is, after exhausting administrative remedies, subject to judicial review.
Facts of the case[edit]
Estep's local board classified him as I-A, i.e., as available for military service. Sec. 5(d) of the Selective Service Act exempts from training and service (but not from registration) "regular or duly ordained ministers of religion". Under the regulations those in that category are classified as IV-D. Estep, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, claimed that he was entitled to that classification. The local board ruled against him. He took his case to the appeal board which classified him as I-A. He then asked the State and National Directors of Selective Service to appeal to the President for him. His request was refused. The local board thereupon ordered him to report for induction. He reported at the time and place indicated. He was accepted by the Navy. But he refused to be inducted, claiming that he was exempt from service because he was an ordained minister of the gospel. He was indicted under 11 of the Act for wilfully failing and refusing to submit to induction. He sought to defend on the ground that as a Jehovah's Witness he was a minister of religion and that he had been improperly denied exemption from service, because the classifying agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to classify him as IV-D.
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Estep v. United States

1.Jump up ^ 327 U.S. 114 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
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: 1946 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
Conscription in the United States
Conscription law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1946 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 00:13.
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/Estep_v._United_States








Falbo v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Falbo v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 19, 1943
 Decided January 3, 1944

Full case name
Falbo v. United States
Citations
320 U.S. 549 (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
Black, joined by Stone, Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson
Concurrence
Rutledge
Dissent
Murphy
Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (1944),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's alleged error in classifying a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister of religion is no defense to the board's order to report for national service; post-reporting review of the classification is sufficient due process.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Facts of the case
3 Prior history
4 Decision of the Court 4.1 Dissenting opinion
5 References

Background[edit]
When the Selective Service and Training Act was passed in September 1940, most of the world was at war. The preamble of the Act declared it 'imperative to increase and train the personnel of the armed forces of the United States.' The danger of attack by our present enemies, if not imminent, was real, as subsequent events have grimly demonstrated. The Congress was faced with the urgent necessity of integrating all the nation's people and forces for national defense.
Facts of the case[edit]
The petitioner was indicted on November 12, 1942, in a federal District Court in Pennsylvania for knowingly failing to perform a duty required of him under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. The particular charge was that, after his local board had classified him as a conscientious objector, he wilfully failed to obey the board's order to report for assignment to work of national importance. Admitting that his refusal to obey the order was wilful, petitioner defended his conduct on the ground that he was entitled to a statutory exemption from all forms of national service, since the facts he had presented to the board showed that he was a 'regular or duly ordained' minister.
Prior history[edit]
The result of the trial was a conviction and sentence to imprisonment for five years. On appeal petitioner urged that the District Court had erred in refusing to permit a trial de novo on the merits of his claimed exemption. In the alternative, he argued that at least the Court should have reviewed the classification order to ascertain whether the local board had been 'prejudicial, unfair, and arbitrary' in that it had failed to admit certain evidence which he offered, had acted on the basis of an antipathy to the religious sect of which he is a member, and had refused to classify him as a minister against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court per curiam.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Dissenting opinion[edit]
Justice Murphy wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that

Common sense and justice dictate that a citizen accused of a crime should have the fullest hearing possible, plus the opportunity to present every reasonable defense. Only an unenlightened jurisprudence condemns an individual without according him those rights. Such a denial is especially oppressive where a full hearing might disclose that the administrative action underlying the prosecution is the product of excess wartime emotions. Experience demonstrates that in time of war individual liberties cannot always be entrusted safely to uncontrolled administrative discretion.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 320 U.S. 549 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
American conscientious objectors
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1944 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1944 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 00:13.
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/Falbo_v._United_States








Falbo v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Falbo v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 19, 1943
 Decided January 3, 1944

Full case name
Falbo v. United States
Citations
320 U.S. 549 (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
Black, joined by Stone, Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson
Concurrence
Rutledge
Dissent
Murphy
Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (1944),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's alleged error in classifying a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister of religion is no defense to the board's order to report for national service; post-reporting review of the classification is sufficient due process.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Facts of the case
3 Prior history
4 Decision of the Court 4.1 Dissenting opinion
5 References

Background[edit]
When the Selective Service and Training Act was passed in September 1940, most of the world was at war. The preamble of the Act declared it 'imperative to increase and train the personnel of the armed forces of the United States.' The danger of attack by our present enemies, if not imminent, was real, as subsequent events have grimly demonstrated. The Congress was faced with the urgent necessity of integrating all the nation's people and forces for national defense.
Facts of the case[edit]
The petitioner was indicted on November 12, 1942, in a federal District Court in Pennsylvania for knowingly failing to perform a duty required of him under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. The particular charge was that, after his local board had classified him as a conscientious objector, he wilfully failed to obey the board's order to report for assignment to work of national importance. Admitting that his refusal to obey the order was wilful, petitioner defended his conduct on the ground that he was entitled to a statutory exemption from all forms of national service, since the facts he had presented to the board showed that he was a 'regular or duly ordained' minister.
Prior history[edit]
The result of the trial was a conviction and sentence to imprisonment for five years. On appeal petitioner urged that the District Court had erred in refusing to permit a trial de novo on the merits of his claimed exemption. In the alternative, he argued that at least the Court should have reviewed the classification order to ascertain whether the local board had been 'prejudicial, unfair, and arbitrary' in that it had failed to admit certain evidence which he offered, had acted on the basis of an antipathy to the religious sect of which he is a member, and had refused to classify him as a minister against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court per curiam.
Decision of the Court[edit]
Dissenting opinion[edit]
Justice Murphy wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that

Common sense and justice dictate that a citizen accused of a crime should have the fullest hearing possible, plus the opportunity to present every reasonable defense. Only an unenlightened jurisprudence condemns an individual without according him those rights. Such a denial is especially oppressive where a full hearing might disclose that the administrative action underlying the prosecution is the product of excess wartime emotions. Experience demonstrates that in time of war individual liberties cannot always be entrusted safely to uncontrolled administrative discretion.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 320 U.S. 549 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
American conscientious objectors
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
1944 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1944 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 00:13.
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/Falbo_v._United_States








Follett v. Town of McCormick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Follett v. Town of McCormick
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11, 1944
 Decided March 27, 1944

Full case name
Follett v. Town of McCormick, S.C.
Citations
321 U.S. 573 (more)
64 S. Ct. 717; 88 L. Ed. 938; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 902; 152 A.L.R. 317

Holding
people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.
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
Douglas
Concurrence
Reed, joined by Murphy
Dissent
Roberts, Frankfurter, Jackson
Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the court 3.1 Majority opinion
3.2 Concurring opinions
4 References

Facts of the case[edit]
Follett was convicted of violating an ordinance of the town of McCormick, South Carolina which provided: '... the following license on business, occupation and professions to be paid by the person or persons carrying on or engaged in such business, occupation or professions within the corporate limits of the Town of McCormick, South Carolina: Agents selling books, per day $1.00, per year $15.00.' Appellant is a Jehovah's Witness and has been certified by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society as 'an ordained minister of Jehovah God to preach the gospel of God's kingdom under Christ Jesus.' He is a resident of McCormick, South Carolina, where he went from house to house distributing certain books. He obtained his living from the money received; he had no other source of income. He claimed that he merely offered the books for a 'contribution'. But there was evidence that he 'offered to and did sell the books'. Admittedly he had no license from the town and refused to obtain one.
Prior history[edit]
At his trial, Follett moved for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence, claiming that the ordinance restricted freedom of worship in violation of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. The motion was overruled and appellant was found guilty by the jury in the Mayor's Court. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Decision of the court[edit]
Majority opinion[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2009)
Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Concurring opinions[edit]
In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy expressed reservations about the power to axe essentially religious activities.
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Follett v. Town of McCormick

1.Jump up ^ 321 U.S. 573 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1944 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1944 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 00:13.
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/Follett_v._Town_of_McCormick








Follett v. Town of McCormick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Follett v. Town of McCormick
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11, 1944
 Decided March 27, 1944

Full case name
Follett v. Town of McCormick, S.C.
Citations
321 U.S. 573 (more)
64 S. Ct. 717; 88 L. Ed. 938; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 902; 152 A.L.R. 317

Holding
people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.
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
Douglas
Concurrence
Reed, joined by Murphy
Dissent
Roberts, Frankfurter, Jackson
Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.


Contents  [hide]
1 Facts of the case
2 Prior history
3 Decision of the court 3.1 Majority opinion
3.2 Concurring opinions
4 References

Facts of the case[edit]
Follett was convicted of violating an ordinance of the town of McCormick, South Carolina which provided: '... the following license on business, occupation and professions to be paid by the person or persons carrying on or engaged in such business, occupation or professions within the corporate limits of the Town of McCormick, South Carolina: Agents selling books, per day $1.00, per year $15.00.' Appellant is a Jehovah's Witness and has been certified by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society as 'an ordained minister of Jehovah God to preach the gospel of God's kingdom under Christ Jesus.' He is a resident of McCormick, South Carolina, where he went from house to house distributing certain books. He obtained his living from the money received; he had no other source of income. He claimed that he merely offered the books for a 'contribution'. But there was evidence that he 'offered to and did sell the books'. Admittedly he had no license from the town and refused to obtain one.
Prior history[edit]
At his trial, Follett moved for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence, claiming that the ordinance restricted freedom of worship in violation of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. The motion was overruled and appellant was found guilty by the jury in the Mayor's Court. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Decision of the court[edit]
Majority opinion[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2009)
Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Concurring opinions[edit]
In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy expressed reservations about the power to axe essentially religious activities.
References[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Follett v. Town of McCormick

1.Jump up ^ 321 U.S. 573 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
Stub icon This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1944 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
1944 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 00:13.
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/Follett_v._Town_of_McCormick







Fowler v. Rhode Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Fowler v. Rhode Island
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 3, 1953
 Decided March 9, 1953

Full case name
Fowler v. Rhode Island
Citations
345 U.S. 67 (more)
Holding
A municipal ordinance which is so construed and applied as to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
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
Douglas
Concurrence
Frankfurter, Jackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Fowler v. Rhode Island

Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a municipal ordinance which was used to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


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

Facts of the case[edit]
The City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, had an ordinance which reads as follows:
"SEC. 11. No person shall address any political or religious meeting in any public park; but this section shall not be construed to prohibit any political or religious club or society from visiting any public park in a body, provided that no public address shall be made under the auspices of such club or society in such park."
Jehovah's Witnesses assembled in Slater Park of Pawtucket for a meeting which at the trial was conceded to be religious in character. About 400 people attended, 150 being Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler, a Jehovah's Witness minister, was invited to give a talk before the Pawtucket congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler accepted the invitation and addressed the meeting in the park over two loud-speakers. It was a quiet, orderly meeting with no disturbances or breaches of the peace whatsoever.
Fowler had been talking only a few minutes when he was arrested by the police and charged with violating the ordinance set forth above. He was tried and found guilty over objections that the ordinance as so construed and applied violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. He was fined $5.
Prior history[edit]
Fowler's conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. 80 R.I., 91 A. 2d 27. Also see Fowler v. State, 79 R. I. 16, 83 A. 2d 67, an earlier opinion answering certified questions and holding the ordinance valid.
Arguments[edit]
Davis v. Massachusetts, decided in 1897, sustained a conviction of a man for making a speech on Boston Common in violation of an ordinance that forbade the making of a public address there without a permit from the mayor. Much of the oral argument and most of the briefs presented in Fowler v. Rhode Island were devoted on the one hand to a defense of the Davis case and on the other hand to an attack on it. Analyses of subsequent decisions were submitted by the State of Rhode Island in an effort either to demonstrate that the Davis case was still valid and applicable to this case. Other analyses were submitted by Fowler to argue that it had been so qualified as to no longer to have any vitality. Fowler asked the Court to overrule Davis; the State of Rhode Island asked to have it reaffirmed.
It was conceded at the trial that this meeting was a religious one. On oral argument before the Court the Assistant Attorney General further conceded that the ordinance, as construed and applied, did not prohibit church services in the park. Catholics could hold mass in Slater Park and Protestants could conduct their church services there without violating the ordinance. Church services normally entail not only singing, prayer, and other devotionals but preaching as well. Even so, those services would not be barred by the ordinance.
Decision[edit]
Justice Douglas delivered the decision of the Court. In it, he wrote that the Court was putting aside "the problems presented by the Davis case and its offspring" because there was one aspect of the case that undercut all others, requiring the Court to reverse the judgment and rule in favor of Fowler. Douglas wrote that the concession by the State of Rhode Island that the meeting in question was a religious one and the further concession that the ordinance did not prohibit church services in the park plainly showed that a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses was treated differently than a religious service of other sects. In the opinion of the Court, that amounted to the state preferring some religious groups over the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Justice Douglas cited the precedent of Niemotko v. Maryland in which there was similarly "a public park, open to all religious groups, was denied Jehovah's Witnesses because of the dislike which the local officials had of these people and their views." In that case, the Court had held the prosecution of Niemotko to be a discrimination that was prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Douglas wrote

it is no business of courts to say that what is a religious practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment. Nor is it in the competence of courts under our constitutional scheme to approve, disapprove, classify, regulate, or in any manner control sermons delivered at religious meetings. Sermons are as much a part of a religious service as prayers. They cover a wide range and have as great a diversity as the Bible or other Holy Book from which they commonly take their texts. To call the words which one minister speaks to his congregation a sermon, immune from regulation, and the words of another minister an address, subject to regulation, is merely an indirect way of preferring one religion over another. That would be precisely the effect here if we affirmed this conviction in the face of the concession made during oral argument.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ v. Rhode Island 67 U.S. Fowler v. Rhode Island 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: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1953 in religion
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 13 March 2015, at 00:13.
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/Fowler_v._Rhode_Island








Fowler v. Rhode Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Fowler v. Rhode Island
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 3, 1953
 Decided March 9, 1953

Full case name
Fowler v. Rhode Island
Citations
345 U.S. 67 (more)
Holding
A municipal ordinance which is so construed and applied as to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
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
Douglas
Concurrence
Frankfurter, Jackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Fowler v. Rhode Island

Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a municipal ordinance which was used to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


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

Facts of the case[edit]
The City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, had an ordinance which reads as follows:
"SEC. 11. No person shall address any political or religious meeting in any public park; but this section shall not be construed to prohibit any political or religious club or society from visiting any public park in a body, provided that no public address shall be made under the auspices of such club or society in such park."
Jehovah's Witnesses assembled in Slater Park of Pawtucket for a meeting which at the trial was conceded to be religious in character. About 400 people attended, 150 being Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler, a Jehovah's Witness minister, was invited to give a talk before the Pawtucket congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler accepted the invitation and addressed the meeting in the park over two loud-speakers. It was a quiet, orderly meeting with no disturbances or breaches of the peace whatsoever.
Fowler had been talking only a few minutes when he was arrested by the police and charged with violating the ordinance set forth above. He was tried and found guilty over objections that the ordinance as so construed and applied violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. He was fined $5.
Prior history[edit]
Fowler's conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. 80 R.I., 91 A. 2d 27. Also see Fowler v. State, 79 R. I. 16, 83 A. 2d 67, an earlier opinion answering certified questions and holding the ordinance valid.
Arguments[edit]
Davis v. Massachusetts, decided in 1897, sustained a conviction of a man for making a speech on Boston Common in violation of an ordinance that forbade the making of a public address there without a permit from the mayor. Much of the oral argument and most of the briefs presented in Fowler v. Rhode Island were devoted on the one hand to a defense of the Davis case and on the other hand to an attack on it. Analyses of subsequent decisions were submitted by the State of Rhode Island in an effort either to demonstrate that the Davis case was still valid and applicable to this case. Other analyses were submitted by Fowler to argue that it had been so qualified as to no longer to have any vitality. Fowler asked the Court to overrule Davis; the State of Rhode Island asked to have it reaffirmed.
It was conceded at the trial that this meeting was a religious one. On oral argument before the Court the Assistant Attorney General further conceded that the ordinance, as construed and applied, did not prohibit church services in the park. Catholics could hold mass in Slater Park and Protestants could conduct their church services there without violating the ordinance. Church services normally entail not only singing, prayer, and other devotionals but preaching as well. Even so, those services would not be barred by the ordinance.
Decision[edit]
Justice Douglas delivered the decision of the Court. In it, he wrote that the Court was putting aside "the problems presented by the Davis case and its offspring" because there was one aspect of the case that undercut all others, requiring the Court to reverse the judgment and rule in favor of Fowler. Douglas wrote that the concession by the State of Rhode Island that the meeting in question was a religious one and the further concession that the ordinance did not prohibit church services in the park plainly showed that a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses was treated differently than a religious service of other sects. In the opinion of the Court, that amounted to the state preferring some religious groups over the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Justice Douglas cited the precedent of Niemotko v. Maryland in which there was similarly "a public park, open to all religious groups, was denied Jehovah's Witnesses because of the dislike which the local officials had of these people and their views." In that case, the Court had held the prosecution of Niemotko to be a discrimination that was prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Douglas wrote

it is no business of courts to say that what is a religious practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment. Nor is it in the competence of courts under our constitutional scheme to approve, disapprove, classify, regulate, or in any manner control sermons delivered at religious meetings. Sermons are as much a part of a religious service as prayers. They cover a wide range and have as great a diversity as the Bible or other Holy Book from which they commonly take their texts. To call the words which one minister speaks to his congregation a sermon, immune from regulation, and the words of another minister an address, subject to regulation, is merely an indirect way of preferring one religion over another. That would be precisely the effect here if we affirmed this conviction in the face of the concession made during oral argument.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ v. Rhode Island 67 U.S. Fowler v. Rhode Island 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: 1953 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Jehovah's Witnesses litigation in the United States
United States free exercise of religion case law
1953 in religion
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 13 March 2015, at 00:13.
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/Fowler_v._Rhode_Island