*1 Changing conditions have begotten modification law of many practices once part deemed a individual’s liberty. Amendment compel First does not pedestrian
to pause on the street argument to listen support- ing of religion politics. another’s views or the door Once opened, visitor may not insert a foot and insist a hearing. certainly He may enter the home. To knock however, or ring, comes close to such invasions. prohibit To open such call of the leaves distribution notice on the signal street at the home without an- nounce deposit. Such of privacy assurance falls far short of an abridgment of freedom of the press. The ordinance adjustment seems a fair privilege dis- tributors and the of householders. Justice join Roberts and Mr. Justice Jackson
Mr. in this dissent.
See opinion also of Mr. Justice Jackson, post, p. 166. DOUGLAS et v. CITY JEANNETTE et al. al. OF Argued 10, 11, 3, No. 450. May March 1943. Decided 1943. *2 Covington Mr. C. Hayden for petitioners.
Mr. Trescher Fred B. respondents. for opinion delivered the Mr. Chief Justice Stone Court. Dis brought this suit in the United States
Petitioners Pennsylvania trict Court for Western to restrain threat prosecution ened criminal them state courts Pennsylvania mu (a of Jeannette respondents, City city nicipal Mayor, and its violation corporation) *3 for prohibits the of orders ordinance solicitation city from the procuring without first a license merchandise paying authorities and a license tax. The ordinance of abridgment held to be an unconstitutional applied is Pennsyl Murdock religion v. free and speech, press vania, ante, questions present 105. The decisive of the p. statutory jurisdic the case are whether district court has whether tion as a court to entertain the and suit, federal established by pleadings proof have their and petitioners in equity. of a cause action diversity citizenship, not of since
The case is one of of of like citizens petitioners, respondents, the some alleges that Pennsylvania. complaint of bill persons who plaintiffs Witnesses, named are Jehovah’s religious prac- engage and religious beliefs entertain suit a class suit describes; that is tices which of all and in brought own behalf behalf petitioners’ adjoining in Pennsylvania Witnesses and other Jehovah’s enforcing from ordinance respondents restrain states City against petitioners of of and all No. 60 Jeannette them, because, applied Witnesses other Jehovah’s of freedom abridges guaranties of the ordinance made religion of the First Amendment speech, press, and by Fourteenth. applicable to states alleged The suit is to arise under the Constitution and of States, including Rights laws the United the Civil Act complaint 1871. The sets up practice that religion in conformity teachings of the Bible, years Jehovah’s make, many Witnesses made, have house to distribution, among people house City Jeannette, printed of certain books and pamphlets setting forth the inter- Jehovah’s Witnesses’ pretations of the teachings Municipal the Bible. Ordi- nance No. provides: “That all persons canvassing for soliciting or within Borough (now said City Jeannette), for goods any orders . . . or wares merchandise kind, persons delivering or such articles under orders so obtained or solicited” without procuring first a license and paying prescribed taxes, punished license fine by shall be exceeding costs, $100 if the fine not paid, imprisonment thirty days. alleged five to It is in April, 1939, respondents arrested prosecuted peti- tioners and other Jehovah’s Witnesses for violation of the ordinance because their described activities distribut- religious ing without literature, permits required by ordinance, respondents threaten continue enforce the ordinance prosecutions— arrests and all in of petitioners’ rights. violation civil preliminary or interlocutory injunction
No granted was but the court, district a trial, after held the ordinance in- *4 valid, 32, 39 F. Supp. on the of authority Reid Borough v. Brookville, F. Supp. 30, 39 it deprived petition- that of press religion guaran- ers of freedom by teed the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The enjoined respondents enforcing court from the ordinance against petitioners and other Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Appeals Court of for Third Circuit sustained jurisdiction of the district but court, reversed on the merits, 130 F. 2d 652, authority of Jones v. Ope- lika, 316 584. judge ground U. S. One dissented on the that the complaint sufficiently did allege violation
161 Amendment of the Fourteenth Process Clause of the Due Rights under the Civil to relief petitioners to entitle so as case certiorari, 749, U. S. and set 318 granted Act. We Pennsylvania, supra. Murdock v. argument jurisdiction had the district court We think it that plain question hear and decide the a federal court to there although ordinance, validity of the constitutional controversy the matter allegation that proof was no or (derived § § 8 U. C. 43 $3,000. By exceeded S. 13, 1871, 17 Stat. April 20, Act of Rights of the Civil 1979) R. change § S. without substantial continued any under color of “every person who, provided it is that usage, any custom, or statute, ordinance, regulation, subjected, to be subjects, or causes Territory, State or within the person other of the United or any citizen States privi- any rights, jurisdiction deprivation to the thereof laws, the Constitution leges, by or immunities secured law, suit injured in an action at party shall be liable to the for redress.” equity, proper proceeding or other O., 507-14, Hague v. C. I. 496, we held in 307 U. S. As given 527-32, the district courts of the United States (14) jurisdiction by brought 28 U. S. over suits §C. Rights Act the allegation proof under the Civil without jurisdictional amount. Not do any only petitioners allege present brought suit was under the Civil Act, allegations but in Rights plainly set out an In fringement provisions. substance, of its the complaint alleges respondents, proceeding challenged under the ordinance, by arrest, detention and criminal prosecu of petitioners tions and other Witnesses, Jehovah’s had subjected deprivation them to of their rights of freedom speech, press religion secured the Constitution, and the complaint equitable seeks relief from such depri vation the future. particular provision of the Constitution on which rely is the Due Process Clause of the Four-
petitioners *5 162 dissenting which the Amendment, violation
teenth to sufficiently alleged estab thought was judge below But Act. Rights the Civil for relief under a basis lish the relationship of special the this overlooks think we speech, freedom the to Amendment Fourteenth re We have the First. religion guaranteed press, has made Amendment that the Fourteenth held peatedly the First. guaranties the the states applicable cited; n. cases State, 8 and Schneider v. 147, 160, U. S. 308 Texas, Allegations of fact 413. suffi Jamison v. 318 U. S. right speech of free under of the deprivation cient show depriva First Amendment are sufficient the establish the right guaranteed by Four tion of a constitutional teenth, action the to state a cause of under Civil abridgment Rights appears whenever it Act, right effected color of a state statute or under ordi which bill, amply alleges nance. It follows that abridgment by facts relied on to show the criminal pro ceedings the ordinance, under sets out a case or con troversy power is within the adjudicatory district court.
Notwithstanding authority of the court, district court, dispose case, petitioners federal to hear and prayed only if to the relief establish are entitled jurisdiction, Want of equity. equity a cause of action going power while not to the court to decide Assn., Di cause, Giovanni v. Camden Ins. 64, ; S. 69 U. Williams, 294 U. S. Pennsylvania 176, 181-82, may v. objected court, in the nevertheless, discretion of Co., own motion. Twist Prairie Oil v. 684, 274 U. on its S. Williams, Pennsylvania supra, Especially v. 185. 690; powers it do so where its are invoked to should interfere injunction with threatened criminal prosecutions a state court. to the power reserved states under Constitu- determination of provide controversies
tion *6 federal courts by be restricted district may their courts in conform- legislation Congressional only obedience to Con- of Constitution. judiciary to the Article ity policy, with cer- gress, by adopted has legislation, leaving generally exceptions, well of statutory tain defined arising under of criminal to the state courts the trial cases any federal laws, subject by to review this Court of state in the exer- Hence, equity questions involved. courts -discretionary powers cise of their should conform this by refusing threat- to interfere with or embarrass policy exceptional ened state courts in those proceedings save equity of a court of interposition cases which call for the injury imminent; which is clear and prevent irreparable infringing remedies this equitable independence though might given— be otherwise states — sought slight inconsequential be withheld if on should Assn., supra, grounds. 73; Di Giovanni v. Camden Ins. Rodgers, 521, 284 U. cf. 525-26; Matthews v. S. United Tyler, Kennedy States ex rel. v. 269 U. S. Massachu- 13; Benton, Grange State 272 525. v. U. S. setts ordi It a rule that courts of do not equity is familiar criminal No is im narily prosecutions. person restrain alleged crim good faith for his prosecution mune imminence, though alleged even to be inal acts. Its ground is a guaranties, violation of constitutional equity constitutionality for relief since the lawfulness or is or ordinance on which prosecution statute may in the readily based determined as criminal case injunction. Mfg. Davis v. in a suit for an & Farnum Co. Angeles, 271 S. 207; Boykin, Los 189 U. Fenner v. U. S. prosecution 240. Where the threatened state offi by alleged law, cers violations of state the state courts meaning are the final arbiters sub application, of its ject only ap grounds to review this Court federal propriately Hence the federal asserted. the arrest courts of within the processes of the criminal law
164 questions the determination of criminal
states, by liability state law federal equity, under court showing danger only to be on a supported irrepara injury great Spielman “both and immediate.” ble Mo Dodge, 89, 95, tor 295 Co. U. S. and cases Beal cited; v. v. 312 Corp., 45, Missouri R. 49, U. S. and cases Pacific Buck, v. U. cited; 387; Miller, Watson S. Williams v. 599. U. S. trial court respondents found that had prosecuted *7 petitioners certain other for Jehovah’s Witnesses distributing the literature described in the complaint having the without obtained license required by the ordi- and had nance, declared their intention further to enforce the against ordinance petitioners other Jehovah’s But finding Witnesses. the court made no threatened irreparable injury to petitioners or cannot others, we say the that declared intention prose- other institute cutions is sufficient irreparable to establish injury of this circumstances case. present
Before suit was begun, convictions had been obtained state courts 480-487, cases Nos. Mur Pennsylvania, dock et al. v. supra, which were then pend ing and which were appeal brought to this Court by review certiorari contemporaneously present with case. It does not from appear petitioners record that have been threatened any injury with other than that in every proceeding brought lawfully cidental criminal good faith, and in a federal that court of equity withdrawing guilt from determination of the state rightly petitioners any protection courts could afford they which could not prompt appeal secure trial and this Court. In these pursued respects the case differs 501-02, O., Hague v. C. I. supra, where local officials meetings forcibly up broke complainants and many .deported instances them from forcibly the state without trial. respond- proof and no here allegation is no
There ac- not, will we can assume not, nor would ents chal- holding this Court decision quiesce applied petition- unconstitutional ordinance lenged constitutional, been held had If ordinance ers. would penalties complain not could petitioners a valid their violation of consequence of but the have been state law. equity exercise of justify the enough
Nor is there this case that in the circumstances jurisdiction prose- threatened of a class are numerous members ju- general In the ordinance. cution for violation of at suits multiplicity of civil equity to avoid risdiction other- there would cases where is restricted to those law numerous maintenance of necessity for the wise be some issues involving the same parties the same suits between cases extend to ordinarily It not of law or fact. does between and the issues parties where there are numerous nec- party them the adverse the state —are —here 529-30, essarily Rodgers, supra, Matthews v. identical. equity cited. Far a federal court of cases less should *8 envisage in all the diverse issues attempt to advance in engage prose- which could the courts attention state the pres- cutions of Jehovah’s Witnesses for violations of ordinance, ent or to to a federal court the assume draw say- determination of in a decree advance, those issues ing in what application circumstances and conditions the city abridge ordinance will freedom be deemed speech religion.
In any event, injuction an looks to the future. Texas Brown, Co. v. 466, 258 U. 474; S. Standard Oil Co. v. States, United 163, 182. U. S. in de And view of the cision rendered today in Pennsylvania, Murdock supra, v. we find ground no for supposing that the intervention of a federal court, in order to petitioners’ secure constitu tional rights, will be either necessary appropriate. or in equity the want of establishing reasons,
For these the court circuit cause, judgment affirm the we the directing bill be dismissed. appeals that the
Affirmed. in in result this concurring Jackson, Mr. Justice Murdock v. Penn- dissenting 480-487, case and in Nos. Struthers, v. ante, 238, No. Martin sylvania, p. 105, and ante, p. 141: Jeannette, all of Douglas et v.
Except the case al. pros- cases record of isolated upon these are decided particular in ecutions which information is confined an offender. individual act of offense and to the behavior of story of comprehensive Only Douglas gives record Wit- the broad Jehovah’s plan campaign employed community. But impact living full nesses its on a as irrelevant facts of this case are over passed particular theory on which the Court would decide reach did Plato’s judgments issue. Unless we are to nothing who saw men were chained a cave so shadows, Douglas but we should consider facts of hypothesis validity of the case at least as an to test the us conclusions cases. This record some- other shows strings It reveals thing of the well as the marionettes. problem authority right in local when those many proselyte people comes contact with what an Chief right have idea is their to be let alone. The Jus- says “in tice for the Court in view of Douglas Pennsylvania, today decision rendered Murdock v. ground we supra, find no that the interven- supposing court, tion of a federal order secure con- petitioners’ rights, necessary stitutional will either appropriate,” hardly could if be said the constitutional issues *9 presented by the this facts of case are not the settled Murdock The of in Douglas case. facts record the case relation the facts of the other cases seem to realistically if arewe consideration recital and me worth related cases the claims of conflicting weigh today decided. we learn: Douglas the record
From instituted Campaign” Tower was 1939, In a “Watch in- an Jeannette, Pennsylvania, Witnesses by Jehovah's home was Each inhabitants.1 16,000 of some city dustrial upon, knocked the door rung was visited, a bell important Witness had that the advised the householder a record was listen, If would the householder information. subject was “Snare Its phonograph. on the played following representative words are The Racket.” it de- because wrong and a snare “Religion is contents: mean that who does not all but that people, ceives Religion is a racket willingly bad. religion are follow to extract is still used long been used and it has because theory promise people upon the money from the to relieve money priest to a will serve over of paying death and fur- after paying punishment party line of attack is taken This ther insure his salvation.” denominations, espe- generally upon all by the Witnesses asked The was Catholic. householder cially the Roman The price for a or contribution. buy variety of literature (1940), Population, Annual Census of the United States Sixteenth Department of Com (Census I Bureau of United States Volume City in Westmoreland merce) p. is included Jeannette 922. population 303,411, 1940 Census to have County, shown Religious Ibid. The 1936 Census of over 1930 1920. an increase County 168,608 people in Westmoreland that of Bodies shows 80,276 Roman religious body, of them with the some were affiliated (Cen I Religious (1936), Bodies Volume Census Catholic Church. Commerce) Department pp. 809- Bureau States sus United unpublished files of the Census According information 814. Religious there were Bodies shows that Bureau, the 1936 Census appears 5,520 Roman Thus City Catholics. in the of Jeannette higher City than percentage in the of Catholics somewhat County as a whole. *10 and twenty-five for the books smaller cents price would be unwilling if Oftentimes, he was pamphlets. for the sums him given to was pamphlet the book to purchase, anyway. of- complaints from began, many campaign this
When or four received, and three were fended householders the “zone serv- Thereafter, were arrested. the Witnesses the Mayor. with campaign conferred charge in ant” carry to on the cam- Mayor right it was their He told him of the United a decision States paign and showed of it. effect, proof have that Court, said to Supreme they liberty him were at to distribute that Mayor The told that would city in the and he their literature streets free if objection they distributed the literature no have objected to charge houses, people at the but that attempt sales, particularly force these on Sun- their to not be day. Mayor possible The asked whether it would the literature day to other and to distribute come some replied that that was selling it. The zone servant without contrary “doing method of business” refused. their bring he Wit- Mayor enough He told the would also get job City done into the of Jeannette nesses Mayor urged it or Mayor whether the liked not. then appeal them to await outcome an was pending the other cases and let the matter take its course too, through This, refused, the courts. was and the threat bring Mayor’s police than the force could people more cope repeated. with was Sunday 1939, good. Palm the threat was made
On appeared. They strangers 100 of the were Over Witnesses city upwards arrived of twenty-five to the auto- parked city were mobiles. The automobiles outside in up gasoline were set limits, headquarters station through director telephone facilities which the be notified when trouble He campaign could occurred. were they bonds arrested. furnished Witnesses began work, As around 9:00 o’clock the morn- ing, telephone began calls come Police Head- quarters, complaints large volume were made all during day. They exceeded the number the po- *11 handle, Department lice could and Fire was called out to assist. The at Witnesses called homes and singly groups, complained some of the they homes were upon Twenty-one called times. several Witnesses were Only arrested. those were arrested proof where definite was obtainable literature had been offered for sale a price. or sale had been made for a Three were later discharged for inadequacies proof, eighteen this were convicted. The zone servant appeal furnished bonds.
The national structure of the Jehovah’s Witness move- ment is also somewhat revealed in this testimony. At the head of the movement in this country is the Watch Tower & Society, Bible Tract a corporation organized under laws of Pennsylvania, having but principal its place of business in Brooklyn, N. Y. It prints all pamphlets, manufactures all books, supplies all phonographs and rec- ords, provides other materials for the Witnesses. It “ordains” these by furnishing each, Witnesses on a basis clearly which does not a appear, certificate that he is a minister of the Gospel. output large Its is and its rev- enues must be considerable. Little is revealed of its affairs. One its “zone servants” testified that its corre- signed spondence is only with the name corporation as anonymity personnel to its is its policy. The as- it sumption that is a “non-profit charitable” corporation may be true, but it is support without beyond mere In assertion. none of these has the cases assertion been supported such usual evidence as a balance sheet or an income statement. What manufacturing costs and are, revenues what salaries or bonuses it pays, what con- for supplies tracts has or services we do simply in- to obtain Jeannette of counsel
know. The effort “companies” of the local formation, records books and in the trial campaign engaged the Jeannette Witnesses the methods contradictory met statements was meager produced. were accounts meaning of such corporation the Watch Tower output of publishing full- of whom are through converts, some disposed of organized ministers. These part-time time and some under the direction “zone groups companies into thorough carry purpose It is their servants.” every home in communities manner so that times visited three or four may regularly work acquire literature year. The full-time Witnesses figure Society Bible & Tract at a Tower Watch prices printed it at the which enables them distribute Some differential. books thereon a substantial *12 of for they acquire dispose and a contribution 50 others, margin the Part-time ministers On is less. 250. they have a differential between the which remit to 200 Society Watch Tower the which is the con- the for the We that many tribution ask books. are told give quantity of the substantial of the away Witnesses who make no people Apart literature contributions. this from fact that differential and that it exists enables part the distributors meet whole or living expenses, proven has impossible in these cases campaigns learn exact results of the from a financial point of There is that group view. evidence accumu- lated a substantial amount the differentials, but tracing money possible was not the fail- because of failure, ure to obtain records and the apparently, to keep them.
The literature thus distributed repe- is voluminous risky, quotations titious. Characterization but is a few something temper. will indicate of its Taking representative book which “Enemies,” lawyer Rutherford, long group, J. F. who this headed is the author, we find the following: greatest “The racket ever invented and practiced is that of religion. The most cruel and public seductive enemy is that which employs religion to carry on the racket, means the people are deceived and the name of Almighty God is reproached. There are systems numerous religion, but the most subtle, fraudulent injurious to humankind is that which is generally labeled the ‘Christian religion,’ because it has the appearance of worshipful devotion to the Supreme Being, and thereby easily many misleads Id. at 144-145. honest and persons.” sincere It analyzes the income of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and an- nounces that it is great racket, “the a racket that greater Id. at 178. than all other rackets combined.” It also says under the chapter heading “Song of the Harlot,” “Referring now to the foregoing Scriptural definition of harlot: What religious system exactly fits the prophecies recorded God’s Word? There is but one answer, and is, Id. Roman organization.” Catholic Church at or nearby dependent 204-205. “Those close upon organization, being main of the same stripe, picture clergy and Protestant and other the Jewish allies of the tag Hierarchy along Hierarchy who behind the at Id. bidding of the old ‘whore’.” at present time do “Says prophet 222. of Jehovah: ‘It shall come (modern Tyre in that pass day, Tyre, Roman organization) forgotten.’ Hierarchy shall Catholic paramours her former illicit who Forgotten by By whom? *13 Id. at 264. her.” fornication with have committed statements Throughout literature, appear the of this kind scriptural prophecy, comment and denunciation amidst used to characterize the demonology, Roman religion, government criticism of and those Catholic advocacy of obedience the law of God authority, to instead and an the man, interpretation of the law of law of they God it. see fairly- campaign of this is most spirit temper
The in his Rutherford, words, again in the perhaps stated “Religion,” pp. 196-198: book bring to house to go from house faithful servants “God’s there, reside to who message kingdom of the those the the Roman Catho- omitting the houses of none, not even king- to the give witness Hierarchy, they there lic High the Most to do they are commanded dom because like a thief.’ enter at the windows ‘They shall so. they set houses, into but nor break They do not loot windows and the doors and before up phonographs right into the houses message kingdom of the send hear; to and while might wish of those who into ears of the ‘sour- desiring hearing, hear are some those homes Locusts invade the to hear. pusses’ compelled are off the wood and eat the varnish and even people of the Likewise extent. God’s faithful some eat the wood to locusts, get kingdom message unto likened witnesses, take the off the they veneer right the house and into including house, in that candles things that are religious from the superstition remove water’, ‘holy them that the doctrines and show people, minds stubble, wood, hay them are taught have been heat. they cannot withstand the by fire, and destructible ‘purgatory’ is a bo- to learn are enabled people frighten agents up by the of Satan geyman, set they may where religious organizations, into the people kingdom money. their hard-earned Thus fleeced clergy religionists, and find that message plagues the Therefore, it. described prevent they unable message comes to them like a thief that prophet, windows, message warning and this is a enters at inside that Christ come, to those who are on the Jesus has warning words, ‘Behold, wit: remember his I (Revelation 15.) thief.’ 16: The day come as a
173 Armageddon very close, and that day upon comes in general world like a thief in night.” day The of Armageddon, to which all of prelude, this is is to be a violent bloody one, for then shall be slain all “demonologists,” including most of those reject who the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In the Murdock on case, another Sunday morning of following Lent, again we find the Witnesses Jean- nette, travelling by twos carrying and threes and cases the books and phonographs. eight This time were ar- against rested, as arrested on the preceding Pahn Sunday Douglas involved case.
In Struthers case, we find the knocking Witness stranger the door of total at Sunday 4:00 on afternoon, The July 7th. householder’s fourteen year old son an- and, at the swered, request, Witness’s called his mother kitchen. from the His mother had previously become disgusted going much about to the “very door” to receive since another leaflets, particularly person had on a pre- called her to door vious occasion and told her, as she I go “that was doomed to to hell I testified, because would in my literature home for my not let this children read.” testified the Witness “shoved She being distributed,2 the circular door” and that she 2 This reads as follows: “Religion Remedy, Support The as a World Evidence Thereof. Judge Rutherford, Sunday, July 28, M.,
Hear 4 P. E. Free, S. T. Welcome, Free. of Goodwill Columbus Ohio Coliseum, All Persons Fair one Grounds.” [On side.] State Importance of Paramount To You! is it?
“1940’s Event What Theocratic Convention Jehovah’s Five The Witnesses. Righteousness— Days July Thirty Cities. All Lovers of — 24-28 — strange threatening fate all ‘Christendom’ makes it Welcome! Religion you public imperative that Come and Hear address on Judge Remedy, Support Thereof, by The Evidence As A World Grounds, the Coliseum of the Ohio Co- Rutherford at State Fair *15 it, promptly than take” she do much more “couldn’t be- Witness, for while she in the of the up presence tore it talk did not “care God,” “in she worship lieved anyone needs to “believe that everybody” and did not worship.” tell how to door to door to us be sent than sparse in is even more The record the Struthers case testify householder did case, in Murdock but the that the Witness given the circular the time she was at jail in would them were that a number of “told me might Police and that their workers I call the Chief of ask be released.” au- public which it is claimed no activity is the
Such claim or tax. This is substan- thority regulate can either I dis- today. if not dissent —a tially, quite, sustained in recited. part by induced no small facts agreement activity many of us would not find this individuals As in- subject disputes objectionable. seriously The personal a matter of indifference to our may be volved affording ample Moreover, we work offices creeds. where importunities from such and live homes shelter and bear bur- answer such calls personally we do the unwelcome. But these observa- turning away den of persistence do not hold true for all. stubborn tions in their the officials of smaller communities efforts strongly held conviction regulate this conduct indicates odds field at many the Court’s decisions this are the realities of life those communities where doing drops may householder himself whatever he July 28, p. m., an lumbus, Ohio, Sunday, at 4 E. S. T. ‘He that hath will come to one of the auditoriums of the convention ear to hear’ below, in with direct wire. Some cities listed tied Columbus are For detailed information concern- the 30 cities ... listed]. [21 ing Committee, conventions write Convention these Watcittower Brooklyn, St., Adams N. Y.” the other [On side.] answer the summons to the door apt and is posi- to have tive religious convictions of his own.3 subjects
Three discussed the opinions in Murdock v. Pennsylvania and Martin v. Struthers tend to obscure the effect of the decisions. The first of these relates form of the in question. ordinances One cannot deter- mine whether makeweight this is mere or whether an it is argument addressed to the constitutionality of ordi- nances; and is, whatever it I cannot reconcile the treat- subject ment of the by the opinions. two In Murdock says Court “the present narrowly ordinance is not drawn to safeguard the people of the community in their *16 against homes the evils of solicitations,” again “the ordinance is narrowly not drawn to or prevent control abuses or evils arising from” solicitation from house house. It follows the recent tendency to invalidate in general ordinances this field that are not “narrowly drawn.” in
But Struthers the narrowly ordinance is certainly drawn. Yet the Court denies nar- the householder the row protection gives. city points out that or- this dinance was narrowly drawn to meet in particular a evil community many where men nights must work by day. rest I had supposed that question, except our in respect to always ordinances invalid on their face, is whether the ordinance applied denies constitutional rights.. in Nothing says implies Constitution rights real are more vulnerable narrow ordinance 3 Compare Chafee, Speech (1941) Freedom of in the United States p. help wondering 407: “I cannot whether the Justices of the Su preme quite organized Court are aware of effect of front-door upon people intrusions who are not sheltered from im zealots and postors by staff of apart servants or the locked entrance of an ment house.” mu- to take I think our function is one.
than to a broad the state construed they are nicipal ordinances and to decide their authorities by local applied courts undertake rather than to accordingly, constitutionality draftsmanship. censoring their give clear- does the Court opinion in neither Secondly, claimed activities particular cut consideration in case immunity, but one to constitutional entitled question, in of others them conduct blends with cer- question here with the confuses the other petitioners these alleged rights of others tain their own. to assert as position no to “restore the Court decides case, In the Murdock the liberties of itinerant position high, constitutional stating without what those it does evangelists.” That form of re- that “This declaring are, beyond privileges under the high estate activity occupies same ligious in the churches worship do Amendment as First dispose How can we pulpits.” preaching from unquestioned by citing the merely case questions this attending congregations voluntarily minister to right to services? to deal Struthers case the Court fails
Similarly, It own merits. with the of the Witnesses behavior *17 ordinance by weighing against the reaches its decision but rights in not of the Witness question only there determine right also “the of the individual householder to willing message”; whether to receive her concludes he is judgment com- that the ordinance “substitutes munity householder”; judgment for the of the individual dis- and decides the case on the basis that “it submits the person punishment annoying tributer to criminal for calls, though on whom he of the litera- recipient even in glad ture distributed fact to receive it.” But is hospitable balance with householder thus thrown weight against the Witness to make is city ordinance wholly hypothetical is to assumption and the contrary fel- Doubtless there exist we have recited. the evidence here the issue callers, welcome these but spirits low who not what those who do is what are the is exercise them community protect right of That issue —the real issue— faith in peace. of their own with. not to be dealt seems in this
Third, opinions suggest both that there are evils something about. municipality may conduct that a do lays But neither nor down workable it, any identifies In Murdock guide in “the doing. says so the Court that ordinance not drawn or control narrowly prevent is arising” abuses or evils from house-to-house solicitation. said Murdock What evils or It also abuses? is we something very registration “have different from a system going under which from those house to house required give their names, addresses and other marks tp of identification the authorities.” The What more? fee of course. But we are told the fee is “a nominal fee as a imposed regulatory measure defray the expenses of policing the activities in question.” it implied Is registration such a for such a fee would be valid? suggestion Wherein does the differ from the ordinance striking we are down? more, This ordinance nothing did give did not discretion to refuse the license nor to cen- ranged sor the literature. The $1.50 fee for day day one to less than a dollar a day two There weeks. syllable is not a of evidence that this amount exceeds the community cost to the policing this activity. If this suggestion of new not illusory, devices is why pres- ent ordinance City invalid? of Struthers decided merely that one with no more business at a home than the delivery of advertising matter should him- not obtrude self farther announcing the fact of delivery. He was free to make the distribution if he left the householder undisturbed, take it in his own time. The Court says the City has not even this much leeway ordering *18 the re- they may be as affairs, complicated however activity. If the local round-the-clock industrial
sult of they than did must closer aim at evils authorities draw hit them. What they I ever can these cases doubt decisions? regulation area of exists under these narrow dangers “the of distribution says, The Struthers opinion legal methods.” easily be controlled traditional can so “by suggests City may It identification devices as posing criminals privilege by control the abuse of and require registration Of license course to canvassers.” devices.” “identification practical is one of the few his to the authori- Merely giving and address one’s name for who investigating them basis ties would afford And strange callers what their record has been. are and asking. If prohibits city that is what Murdock us is conduct revealed to the entire course of concerted to throw immune, I think it neither fair nor wise should If encouragement the cities new restraints. try out to I think passes boundary immunity, of it part some we say why cases are part we should what these it. denying regulate suggestion right each Struthers that must worked out problem “the be community in view itself” is somewhat ironical fate of the involved. ordinances here color given
Our difference opinion fairly cannot be rights disagreement of a to whether the as constitutional of Jehovah’s in so far protected Witnesses should rights. Witnesses, These in common all rights have others, proselyte propagan- extensive dize. These of include the right oppose course any criticize the Church other denom- Roman Catholic be, These rights are, ination. should be held any society religious can orderly extensive as tolerate rights disputation. question The real where their end rights begin. of deter- others The real task mining rights the extent of their balance with *19 of others is not met by general pronouncement propo- disagreement. sitions with which there is no If we should strip these cases to the underlying I questions, find them too difficult as constitutional problems to be disposed vague a but fervent transcendentalism.
In my view, the First Amendment assures the broadest speech, tolerable exercise of free press, free and free assem- bly, merely religious not purposes, for but political, economic, news, scientific, or well. informational ends as When limits are which reached such must communications observe, go religious can one farther under the cloak of evangelism? Does what or obscene, commercial, or abusive, if inciting employed become less so promote a religious ideology? I had rights supposed and non-religious secular more communications were in any way religious narrow or inferior to those avowed groups.
It may be asked then does the First why Amendment religion? history exercise separately mention free gives of religious persecution Religion the answer. protection subject needed because it was specific to attack from a It claimed separate quarter. was often that one was an guilty heretic and because he failed to blasphemy conform mere belief or institu- support prevailing It theology. religious teaching tions and was to assure discussion, much freedom as secular rather than to assure it greater license, that led to its separate statement. grew experience
The First Amendment out of an taught society cannot trust of a conscience majority religious keep its zeal within the limits that society a I free can tolerate. do not think it any more intended to leave the conscience fix minority of a government limits. any Civil can not let ride group rough-shod simply over others because “consciences” tell them do so. Court has
A to whether common-sense test as what the ask a balance of these is to proper struck should if to these Witnesses right given effect would be If each com- by all denominations. be exercised sects and householder in the went after the peting sect United States If intolerable. methods, I think it same should community, minority put this kind of can drive *20 do to majority resorting can to the same tactics what a one sect a give Can we to and minorities? individuals in the merely hope to privilege give all, that we could not free- Religious it? that most of them will not resort to kind of long not come from this dom the run does fix but of hard- limits, to sect own comes license each authority with fixing headed of those limits neutral eye proselyte compatible to the freedom to an widest subject proselyting pressures. freedom those accept I holding cannot the Murdock case that high “occupies behavior revealed here the same estate in the churches worship under First Amendment as do put To them on preaching pulpits.” and dangerous plane to me to have a same constitutional seems religious freedom. tendency discrediting towards part I think an Neither can it essential freedom that obscene, religious language be that is differences aired a have held that abusive, inciting to retaliation. We a may public not call a officer “God Jehovah’s Witness Fascist,” racketeer” a “damned because damned and words,” privileged. use “fighting is to such Hampshire, S. 568. How then Chaplinsky New 315 U. v. “high today privi- the Court hold it a constitutional can including Catholics homes, those devout lege” go Sunday upon thrust them litera- morning, Palm on a and their faith calling their church a “whore” ture 4 “racket”? 4 Chrestensen, 52, permitting Compare ban Valentine v. U. S. a containing appeal a a civic on one side and distribution of handbill on the other. advertisement a commercial religion Nor am I that we can have freedom convinced only by conviction denying deep-seated the American’s hauling refuge pulling that his home is a from the place stranger the market For a to corner street. him home, put man his him to the door and summon ordering position arguing religion or of either his one of use disposition unknown leave is a questionable religious freedom.5
I find Struthers case impossible to believe that can “The the statement solved reference to authors of the un- First Amendment knew that novel and might they conventional the complacent, ideas disturb but chose to freedom encourage believed essen- if vigorous tial enlightenment triumph was ever to over I ignorance.” slothful if only slothfully igno- doubt repose homes, rant wish in their or that the forefathers open intended to the door to “enlightenment” such forced as we have here.
In cases, these local caught authorities between the offended householders the drive of the Witnesses, have *21 put been hard keep peace of their communities. They have invoked old ordinances that are crude and clumsy I purpose. think should that the singular persistence of the turmoil about Jehovah’s one Witnesses, which seems result from work of no sect, other suggest would to this Court thorough examination of their methods to see if impinge unduly the rights of others. Instead of that the in has, Court one way after tied the another, hands of all local authority and made the aggressive methods of this group law of the land.
This Court is forever new adding stories to the temples law, constitutional temples have a way of collapsing when story one many too is added. So it was liberty contract, which was discredited by being overdone. The Court is adding a new privilege to over- Chafee, supra 3,
5See pp. footnote 406-407. regarded has others to what before been
ride the needlessly doing In creates religious liberty. so Constitution of our discrediting provision a wise risk of as those out of homes as well all—those in protects orderly practice religion them —in the peaceful, right force it gives upon no their choice but which others. find origin their and must their ulti- had
Civil liberties If that faith people. in faith of guaranty mate Washington in five or nine could lost, should be men Therefore we must do our want. utmost long supply its easily clear understandable reasons for to make Forthright do. deciding these cases we observance of forthright definition. rights presupposes majority has failed in this I duty. I think that in Murdock and dissent Struthers and concur therefore Douglas. the result of Me. join opinions I Murdock Reed Justice Me. Justice Struthers, that of Frankfurter in Murdock.
Mr. Justice joins in Frankfurter these views. PHILLIPS, LOCKERTY et UNITED STATES al. v. ATTORNEY. Argued May 10, 1943. May 3, 934.
No. 1943.Decided