308 U.S. 147 (1939), 11, Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington)
| Docket Nº | 11, 13, 18, 29. |
| Citation | 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 |
| Opinion Judge | Mr. ROBERTS, Justice. |
| Party Name | SCHNEIDER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (TOWN OF IRVINGTON). YOUNG v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SNYDER v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE. NICHOLS et al. v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. |
| Attorney | Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and Olin R. Moyle both of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Mr. Robert I. Morris, of Newark, N.J., for respondent. Messrs. Osmond K. Fraenkel, of New York City, and A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Messrs. Frederick von Schrader, Ray L. Chesebro, Leon T... |
| Judge Panel | Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting. Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS |
| Case Date | November 22, 1939 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 147
Argued and Submitted Oct. 13-16, 1939.
Page 148
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 149
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 150
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey.
On Appeal from the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.
On Appeal from the Superior Court, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Clara Schneider was convicted of canvassing without a permit as required by an ordinance of the Town of Irvington, New Jersey, and she brings certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, 121 N.J.L. 542, 3 A.2d 609, affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, 120 N.J.L. 460, 200 A. 799, affirming the conviction.
Kim Young was convicted of violating section 28.01 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibiting the distribution of handbills, and from a judgment of the Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, affirming the conviction, 85 P.2d 231, he appeals.
Harold F. Snyder was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, prohibiting the circulation or distribution of circulars and handbills, and to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirming the judgment of conviction, 230 Wis. 131, 283 N.W. 301, he brings certiorari.
Elmira Nichols and Pauline Thompson were convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Worcester, Massachusetts, prohibiting the distribution of handbills or similar papers, and they appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overruling their exceptions, 18 N.E.2d 166.
Judgment in each case reversed and causes remanded for further proceedings.
[60 S.Ct. 147] No. 11:
Page 151
No. 13:
No. 18:
Page 152
No. 29:
Page 153
OPINION
Four cases are here, each of which presents the question whether regulations embodied in a municipal ordinance
Page 154
abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, U.S.C.A.1
[60 S.Ct. 148] No. 13.
The Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles, 1936, provides:
‘ Sec. 28.00. ‘ Hand-Bill’ shall mean any hand-bill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public.'
‘ Sec. 2801. No person shall distribute any hand-bill to or among pedestrians along or upon any street, sidewalk or park, or to passengers on any street car, or throw, place or attach any hand-bill in, to or upon any automobile or other vehicle.’
The appellant was charged in the Municipal Court with a violation of Sec. 28.01. Upon his trial it ws proved that he distributed handbills to pedestrians on a public sidewalk and had more than three hundred in his possession for that purpose. Judgment of conviction was entered and sentence imposed. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County affirmed the judgment. 2 That court being the highest court in the State authorized to pass upon such a case, an appeal to this court was allowed.
The handbill which the appellant was distributing bore a notice of a meeting to be held under the auspices of ‘ Friends Lincoln Brigade’ at which speakers would discuss the war in Spain.
The court below sustained the validity of the ordinance on the ground that experience shows littering of the
Page 155
streets results from the indiscriminate distribution of handbills.3 It held that the right of free expression is not absolute but subject to reasonable regulation and that the ordinance does not transgress the bounds of reasonableness. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949, was distinguished on the ground that the ordinance there in question prohibited distribution anywhere within the city while the one involved forbids distribution in a very limited number of places.
No. 18.
An ordinance of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, provides: ‘ It is hereby made unlawful for any person * * * to * * * throw * * * paper * * * or to circulate or distribute any circular, hand-bills, cards, posters, dodgers, or other printed or advertising matter * * * in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, wharf, boat landing, dock or ther public place, park or ground within the City of Milwaukee.’
The petitioner, who was acting as a picket, stood in the street in front of a meat market and distributed to passing pedestrians hand-bills which pertained to a labor dispute with the meat market, set forth the position of organized labor with respect to the market, and asked citizens to refrain from patronizing it. Some of the bills were thrown in the street by the persons to whom they were given and it resulted that many of the papers lay in the gutter and in the street. The police officers who arrested the petitioner and charged him with a violation
Page 156
of the ordinance did not arrest any of those who received the bills and threw them away. The testimony was that the action of the officers accorded with a policy of the police department in enforcement of the ordinance to the effect that, when such distribution resulted in littering of the streets, the one who was the cause of the littering, that is, he who passed out the bills, was arrested rather than those who received them and afterwards threw them away. The Milwaukee County court found the petitioner guilty and fined him. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 4
The court held that the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent an unsightly, untidy, and offensive condition of the sidewalks. It distinguished Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, on the ground that the ordinance there considered manifestly was not aimed at prevention of littering of the streets. The court approved the administrative construction of the ordinance by the police officials and felt that this construction sustained its validity. The court [60 S.Ct. 149] said: ‘ Unless and until delivery of the handbills was shown to result in a littering of the streets their distribution was not interfered with.’
No. 29.
An ordinance of the City of Worcester, Massachusetts, provides: ‘ No person shall distribute in, or place upon any street or way, any placard, handbill, flyer, poster, advertisement or paper of any description.’
The appellants distributed in a street leaflets announcing a protest meeting in connection with the administration of State unemployment insurance. They did not throw any of the leaflets on the sidewalk or scatter them.
Page 157
Some of those to whom the leaflets were handed threw them on the sidewalk and the street, with the result that some thirty were lying about.
The appellants were arrested and charged with a violation of the ordinance. The Superior Court of Worcester County rendered a judgment of conviction and imposed sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court overruled exceptions.5 That court held the ordinance a valid regulation of the use of the streets and sought thus to distinguish it from the one involved in Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, which the court said was not such a regulation. Referring to the ordinance the court said: ‘ It interferes in no way with the publication of anything in the city of Worcester, except only that it excludes the public streets and ways from the places available for free distribution. It leaves open for such distribution all other places in the city, public and private.’
No. 11.
An ordinance of the Town of Irvington, New Jersey, provides: ‘ No person except as in this ordinance provided shall canvass, solicit, distribute circulars, or other matter, or call from house to house in the Town of Irvington without first having reported to and received a written permit from the Chief of Police or the officer in charge of Police Headquarters.’ It further enacts that a permit to canvass shall specify the number of hours or days it will be in effect; that the canvasser must make an application giving his name, address, age, height, weight, place of birth, whether or not previously arrested or convicted of crime, by whom employed, address of employer, clothing worn, and description of project for which he is canvassing;
Page 158
that each applicant shall be fingerprinted and photographed; that the Chief of Police shall refuse a permit in all cases where the application, or further investigation made at the officer's discretion, shows that the canvasser is not of good character or is canvassing for a project not free from fraud; that canvassing may only be done between 9 A.M. and 5 P.M.; that the canvasser must furnish a photograph of himself which is to be attached to the permit; that the permittee must exhibit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
252 F.Supp. 234 (W.D.Tex. 1966), Civ. A. 1570, United States v. State of Texas
...v. State of Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196 (85 S.Ct. 283, 290, 13 L.Ed.2d 222). See Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, 161 (60 S.Ct. 146, 151, 84 L.Ed. Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 1965, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1688 (concurring opinion, Goldberg, J......
-
34 F.Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1940), Chrestensen v. Valentine
...cases were reversed and each ordinance held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155. No distinction was made in any of these cases between commercial and non-commercial circulars or handbills. The ......
-
496 F.2d 164 (3rd Cir. 1974), 73-1924, Alderman v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
...is manifest in such decisions as Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 527 n. 12, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945), and Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). Professor Wechsler has suggested that the 'preferred position' argument is 'pernicious' insofar as it......
-
898 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.Neb. 2012), 8:09CV456, Doe v. State
...of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). More specifically, the Supreme Court has said that even when the government has a compelling interest i......
-
252 F.Supp. 234 (W.D.Tex. 1966), Civ. A. 1570, United States v. State of Texas
...v. State of Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196 (85 S.Ct. 283, 290, 13 L.Ed.2d 222). See Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, 161 (60 S.Ct. 146, 151, 84 L.Ed. Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 1965, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1688 (concurring opinion, Goldberg, J......
-
34 F.Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1940), Chrestensen v. Valentine
...cases were reversed and each ordinance held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155. No distinction was made in any of these cases between commercial and non-commercial circulars or handbills. The ......
-
496 F.2d 164 (3rd Cir. 1974), 73-1924, Alderman v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
...is manifest in such decisions as Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 527 n. 12, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945), and Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). Professor Wechsler has suggested that the 'preferred position' argument is 'pernicious' insofar as it......
-
898 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.Neb. 2012), 8:09CV456, Doe v. State
...of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). More specifically, the Supreme Court has said that even when the government has a compelling interest i......
-
Tinker, Take Two
...government may not prohibit leafleting on the grounds that some recipients of the missives are litterbugs. E.g., Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 162 (1939) (“There are obvious methods of preventing littering. Amongst these is the punishment of those who actually throw papers on the s......
-
Protecting the living and the dead: how Missouri can enact a constitutional funeral-protest statute.
...(1980); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (57.) Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992). (58.) Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 264-65 (1981). (59.) ......
-
The speaker the court forgot: re-evaluating NLRA section 8(b) (4) (B)'s secondary boycott restrictions in light of Citizens United and Sorrell.
...corporation, or association. Id. at 91. (92.) Id. at 93-94. (93.) Id. at 91. (94.) Id. at 95. (95.) Id. at 96 (quoting Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 162 (1939)). (96.) Id. at 101. (97.) Id. at 103-04 (emphasis added). (98.) Id. at 105. (99.) Pope, supra note 2, at 219. "Within......
-
The free exercise clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the right to active and passive euthanasia.
...303. (86) Id. at 300-07. (87) 319 U.S. 105 (1943). (88) 318 U.S. 413 (1943). (89) 319 U.S. 624 (1943). (90) See Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 157-64 (1939). (91) Nowak & Rotunda, supra note 3, at 1218. (92) 494 U.S. 872 (1990). (93) 98 U.S. 145 (1879). (94) 494 U.S. at 874. (95......
-
Bans.
...(95.) Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 416 (1943). (96.) Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 145-49 (1943); Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 164-65 (97.) Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 75-76 (1981). (98.) Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1067 (9......