Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, No. 632

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation60 S.Ct. 900,84 L.Ed. 1213,128 A.L.R. 1352,310 U.S. 296
Decision Date20 May 1940
Docket NumberNo. 632
PartiesCANTWELL et al. v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT

310 U.S. 296
60 S.Ct. 900
84 L.Ed. 1213
CANTWELL et al.

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 632.
Argued March 29, 1940.
Decided May 20, 1940.

Page 297

Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of New York City, for appellants and petitioners.

Messrs. Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, Conn., and Francis A. Pallotti, of Hartford, Conn, for appellee and respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 297-299 intentionally omitted]

Page 300

Mr. Justice ROBERTS, delivered the opinion of the Court.

Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, members of a group known as Jehovah's witnesses, and claiming to be ordained ministers, were arrested in New Haven, Connecticut, and each was charged by information in five counts, with statutory and common law offenses. After trial in the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County each of them was convicted on the third count, which charged a violation of § 6294 of the General Statutes of Connecticut,1 and on the fifth count, which charged commission of the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace. On appeal to the Supreme Court the conviction of all three on the third count was affirmed. The conviction of Jesse Cantwell, on the fifth count, was also affirmed, but the conviction of Newton and Russell on that count was reversed and a new trial ordered as to them.2

By demurrers to the information, by requests for rulings of law at the trial, and by their assignments of error in the State Supreme Court, the appellants pressed the contention that the statute under which the third count was drawn was offensive to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because, on its face and as construed and applied, it denied them freedom of speech and prohibited their free exercise of religion. In like manner

Page 301

they made the point that they could not be found guilty on the fifth count, without violation of the Amendment.

We have jurisdiction on appeal from the judgments on the third count, as there was drawn in question the validity of a state statute under the federal Constitution, and the decision was in favor of validity. Since the conviction on the fifth count was not based upon a statute, but presents a substantial question under the federal Constitution, we granted the writ of certiorari in respect of it.

The facts adduced to sustain the convictions on the third count follow. On the day of their arrest the appellants were engaged in going singly from house to house on Cassius Street in New Haven. They were individually equipped with a bag containing books and pamphlets on religious subjects, a portable phonograph and a set of records, each of which, when played, introduced, and was a description of, one of the books. Each appellant asked the person who responded to his call for permission to play one of the records. If permission was granted he asked the person to buy the book described and, upon refusal, he solicited such contribution towards the publication of the pamphlets as the listener was willing to make. If a contribution was received a pamphlet was delivered upon condition that it would be read.

Cassius Street is in a thickly populated neighborhood, where about ninety per cent of the residents are Roman Catholics. A phonograph record, describing a book entitled 'Enemies', included an attack on the Catholic religion. None of the persons interviewed were members of Jehovah's witnesses.

The statute under which the appellants were charged provides:

'No person shall solicit money, services, subscriptions or any valuable thing for any alleged religious, charitable

Page 302

or philanthropic cause, from other than a member of the organization for whose benefit such person is soliciting or within the county in which such person or organization is located unless such cause shall have been approved by the secretary of the public welfare council. Upon application of any person in behalf of such cause, the secretary shall determine whether such cause is a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy and conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity, and, if he shall so find, shall approve the same and issue to the authority in charge a certificate to that effect. Such certificate may be revoked at any time. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.'

The appellants claimed that their activities were not within the statute but consisted only of distribution of books, pamphlets, and periodicals. The State Supreme Court construed the finding of the trial court to be that 'in addition to the sale of the books and the distribution of the pamphlets the defendants were also soliciting contributions or donations of money for an alleged religious cause, and thereby came within the purview of the statute.' (126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 535.) It overruled the contention that the Act, as applied to the appellants, offends the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it abridges or denies religious freedom and liberty of speech and press. The court stated that it was the solicitation that brought the appellants within the sweep of the Act and not their other activities in the dissemination of literature. It declared the legislation constitutional as an effort by the State to protect the public against fraud and imposition in the solicitation of funds for what purported to be religious, charitable, or philanthropic causes.

The facts which were held to support the conviction of Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count were that he stopped

Page 303

two men in the street, asked, and received, permission to play a phonograph record, and played the record 'Enemies', which attacked the religion and church of the two men, who were Catholics. Both were incensed by the contents of the record and were tempted to strike Cantwell unless he went away. On being told to be on his way he left their presence. There was no evidence that he was personally offensive or entered into any argument with those he interviewed.

The court held that the charge was not assault or breach of the peace or threats on Cantwell's part, but invoking or inciting others to breach of the peace, and that the facts supported the conviction of that offense.

First. 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.3 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

Page 304

second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.4 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.5 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....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2730 practice notes
  • American Atheists, Inc. v. Detroit Downtown Development Authority, No. 07-2398.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 28, 2009
    ...First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940), provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting......
  • Fulton v. City of Phila., No. 19-123
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2021
    ...the State has in place a system of individual exemptions" (citing Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 401, n. 4)); see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-307 (1940) (subjecting statute to heightened scrutiny because exemptions lay in discretion of government official). As the Court's opin......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305, 60 S.Ct. 900, 904, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940), it may restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights if justified by compelling public inte......
  • Mancuso v. Taft, Civ. A. No. 4751.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • April 17, 1972
    ...and punish specific conduct as constituting a clear and present danger to a substantial interest of the State.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 311 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 84 L.Ed. 1213. Legitimate legislative goals `cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle 341 F. Supp. 578 fundamen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2714 cases
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305, 60 S.Ct. 900, 904, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940), it may restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights if justified by compelling public inte......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...susceptible of application to protected expression." Gooding v. Wilson, supra, 405 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. at 1106; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). "When First Amendment rights are involved," a court must "look even more closely lest, under the ......
  • Martin v. Houston, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-905-WKW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • April 6, 2016
    ...will be denied, and these issues will be addressed in conjunction with the separate show cause order.8 See Cantwell v. Connecticut , 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).9 Houston also cites Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center Inc. v. Town of Woodboro in support of his moti......
  • Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, Civ. A. No. 71-1575.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 19, 1980
    ...abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution...." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-10, 60 S.Ct. 900, 905-06, 84 L.Ed. 1213 IV. The Painting of Lines at the Whitman Park Gates In paragraph 1(a) of its Order of April 1, 198......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • OVERBROAD INJUNCTIONS AGAINST SPEECH (ESPECIALLY IN LIBEL AND HARASSMENT CASES).
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 45 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...or meaningful, give[n] Ms. Lichtman's insatiable desire to pursue wasteful, vexatious, baseless, and harassing litigation"). (318.) 310 U.S. 296, 301 (1940). (319.) 562 U.S. 443 (2011). (320.) 380 U.S. 356 (1965). (321.) 376 U.S. 254 (1964). (322.) Collins, 380 U.S. at 356; for the factual ......
  • Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 Nbr. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257-258 (1982); Thomas, 450 U.S., at 718; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403 (1963); and Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304-307 (1940). (101) And so, it is challenging to escape the conclusion that Smith, in holding that neutral laws of general applicability......
  • THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...such as the First Amendment. Cf. Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940) (Free Exercise Clause); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365-66 (1937) (Free Assembly Clause); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Ols......
  • Born-Again RFRA: Will the Military Backslide on its Religious Conversion?
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 Nbr. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...or "very important" in their lives. Id. at 4. (63) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963) (citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (64) Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1879). (65) Id. at 164; see also Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890) (upholding laws ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT