Fowler v. State of Rhode Island
Decision Date | 09 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 340,340 |
Parties | FOWLER v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Mr. Raymond J. Pettine, Providence, R.I., for appellee.
The City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, has an ordinance which reads as follows:
Johovah's Witnesses, a religious sect, 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. Appellant is a minister of this sect, residing in Arlington, Mass. He was invited to Pawtucket as a visiting miniter to give a talk before the Pawtucket congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Appellant accepted the invitation, attended the meeting in the park, and addressed it over two loud speakers. It was a quiet, orderly meeting with no disturbances or breaches of the peace whatsoever.
Appellant's address was entitled 'The Pathway to Peace.' He discussed the futility of efforts being made to establish peace in the world. And then, according to his uncontradicted testimony he 'launched forth into the scriptural evidence to show where we were on the string of time; that we hard reached the end of this wicked system of things.' Appellant 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. His conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. 91 A.2d 27. And see Fowler v. State, R.I., 83 A.2d 67, an earlier opinon answering certified questions and holding the ordinance valid. The case is here on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2).
Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71, decided in 1897, sustained a conviction of a man for making a speech on the Boston Commons 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 have been devoted on the one hadn to a defense of the Davis case and on the other hand to an attack on it. Analyses of subsequent decisions have been submitted in an effort either to demonstrate that the Davis case is today good law, or to show that it has been so qualified as no longer to have any vitality. We are invited by appellant to overrule it; we are asked by respondent to reaffirm it.
We put to one side the problems presented by the Davis case and its offspring. For there is one aspect of the present case that undercuts all others and makes it necessary for us to reverse the judgment. As we have said, 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. That broad concession, made in oral argument, is fatal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity
...the First Amendment and cannot form the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 17 (See Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, [court cannot regulate or control sermons]; see also Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., supra, 535......
-
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
...982), nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs (Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, 527, 97 L.Ed. 828), nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views (Murdock v. Pennsylvania ......
-
Katz v. Superior Court
...or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (discrimination in use of park); nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious vie......
-
Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township
...solicitations preferred one denomination over another and therefore violated the Establishment Clause); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1957) (holding application of ordinance that prohibited preaching in public parks only against Jehovah's Witnesses but not......
-
ESTABLISHMENT'S POLITICAL PRIORITY TO FREE EXERCISE.
....See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494-95 (1961) (state constitutional provision requiring a belief in God); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953) (ordinance targeting religious preaching); Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944) (flat tax applied as to religious (88) Bra......
-
Constitutional conversations and new religious movements: a comparative case study.
...See Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953) (considering a local ordinance restricting use of public park); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953) (considering a local ordinance restricting use of public park); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949) (involving a municipal penal ordin......
-
JACOBSON 2.0: POLICE POWER IN THE TIME OF COVID-19.
...(1993). (354) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 532 (citing Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 607 (1961); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 69 (355) Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610, 614 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303); On Fire Christian ......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...U.S. 816 (1965) (mem.) (denying certiorari in a case that directly implicated Chae Chan Ping v. United States)-, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 69 (1953) ("We put to one side the problems presented by the Davis [v. Massachusetts] case and its (421.) See Kavanaugh Hearing, supra note 1......