Tucker v. State of Texas
| Decision Date | 07 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 87,87 |
| Citation | 66 S.Ct. 274,326 U.S. 517,90 L.Ed. 274 |
| Parties | TUCKER v. STATE OF TEXAS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On Appeal from the County Court of Medina County, Texas.
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.
The appellant was charged in the Justice Court of Medina County, Texas, with violating Article 479, Chap. 3 of the Texas Penal Code which makes it an offense for any 'peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise' wilfully to refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by the owner or possessor thereof. The appellant urged in his defense that he was not peddler or hawker of merchandise, but a minister of the gospel engaged in the distribution of religious literature to willing recipients. He contended that to construe the Texas statute as applicable to his activities would, to that extent, bring it into conflict with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and religion. Const. Amend. 1. His contention was rejected and he was convicted. On appeal to the Medina County Court, his Constitutional contention was again overruled. Since he could not appeal to a higher state court this appeal under Sec. 237(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 344(a), is properly before us. Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873.
The facts shown by the record need be but briefly stated. Appellant is an ordained minister of the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. In accordance with the practices of this group he calls on people from door to door, presents his religious views to those willing to listen, and distributes religious literature to those willing to receive it. In the course of his work, he went to the Hondo Navigation Village located in Medina County, Texas. The village is owned by the United States under a Congressional program which was designed to provide housing for persons engaged in National Defense activities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1521—1553, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1521—1553. According to all indications the village was freely accessible and open to the public and had the characteristics of a typical American town. The Federal Public Housing Authority had placed the buildings in charge of a manager whose duty it was to rent the houses, collect the rents, and generally to supervise operations, subject to over-all control by the Authority. He ordered appellant to discontinue all religious activities in the village. Appellant refused. Later the manager ordered appellant to leave the village. Insisting that the manager had no right to suppress religious activities, appellant declined to leave, and his arrest followed. At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion. He thought this broad authority was entrusted to him, at least in part, by a regulation, which the Authority's Washington office had allegedly promulgated. He testified that this regulation provided that no peddlers or hawkers could come into or remain in the village without getting permission from the manager.1 Since the Texas Court has deemed this evidence of authority of the manager to suppress appellant's activities sufficient to support a conviction under the State statute, we accept their holding in this respect for the purposes of this appeal.
The foregoing statement of facts shows their close similarity to the facts which led us this day to decide in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, that managers of a company-owned town could not bar all distribution of religious literature within the town, or condition distribution upon a permit issued at the discretion of its man- agement. The only difference between this case and Marsh v. Alabama is that here instead of a private corporation, the Federal Government owns and operates the village. This difference does not affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Younger v. Smith
...New York, 334 U.S. 558, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 92 L.Ed. 1574; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265; Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 66 S.Ct. 274, 90 L.Ed. 274; and Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 47 S.Ct. 655, 71 L.Ed. 1108), probably diluted in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S.......
-
Furr v. Town of Swansea
...U.S. 103, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946); Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 66 S.Ct. 274, 90 L.Ed. 274 (1946); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 31......
-
Dennis v. United States
...310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265; Tucker v. State of Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 66 S.Ct. 274, 90 L.Ed. 274; Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840; Saia v. People of State of Ne......
-
Breard v. City of Alexandria, La
...with the conclusion reached in this case. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265, and Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 66 S.Ct. 274, 90 L.Ed. 274,34 a state was held by this Court unable to punish for trespass, after notice under a state criminal statute, certain distri......
-
Constitutional conversations and new religious movements: a comparative case study.
...Court initially held that proselytizing cases raised free exercise claims as well as speech and press claims, see, e.g., Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946); Follet v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943); Murdock v. P......
-
The Fiction of the First Freedom
...v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Marsh v.Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946); Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946); Breard v. Alexandria, U.S. 622 (1951). 13 Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915); Mutual Film Corp. ......
-
The South Counterattacks: the Anti-Naacp Laws
...Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946); Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951);Burstyn v. Wilson, 3......
-
Religious Freedom—a Good Security Risk?
...religious announcements (1940); Murdock v. Pennsyl- and vania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943); Tucker v. Texas, signs, and similar denials of legal 326 U. S. 517 (1946); Marsh v. Alabama, and civil rights to religious minorities. U. S. 501 (1946); Saia v. New York, 334U. S. 558 (1948) ; Niemotko v. M......