DAVIS v. BEASON

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
1261
Appellant 
Samuel D. Davis
Respondent 
Beason
Decided By 
Fuller Court (1889-1890)
Opinion 
133 U.S. 333 (1890)
Argued 
December 9-10, 1889
Decided 
Monday, February 3, 1890
Advocates
F. S. Richards
(argued the cause for the appellant)
S. Shellabarger
(argued the cause for the appellant)
J. M. Wilson
(argued the cause for the appellant)
H. W. Smith
(argued the cause for the appellee)
Term:
Location: Samaria Village Election Precinct
Facts of the Case 

An Idaho Territory statute required voters swear an oath stating that they were neither a polygamist nor were they a member of any organization that promoted polygamy. In April 1889, Samuel D. Davis, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose members often practiced and advocated polygamy, was indicted for falsely swearing the oath prior to the 1888 election. Davis was convicted and sentenced to pay of fine of $500 and serve 250 days in county jail. On the same day as his conviction, Davis obtained a writ of habeas corpus, accusing the county sheriff of imprisoning him illegally. Davis claimed that requiring the oath violated his right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The federal territorial court denied Davis' claim.

Question 

Did requiring Davis swear an oath that he was not a member of an organization that promoted polygamy violate Davis' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion 

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stephen J. Field, the Court rejected the notion that polygamy was a meaningful tenet of a religion, and thus rejected Davis' claim to First Amendment protections. In his opinion, Justice Field condemned the practices of polygamy and bigamy, saying, "To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind." The opinion goes on to note that "religion," in the context of the First Amendment, refers primarily to "one's views of his relations to his Creator" and "modes of worship" and is not intended to be "invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."

Cite this Page
DAVIS v. BEASON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 May 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1889/1889_1261>.
DAVIS v. BEASON, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1889/1889_1261 (last visited May 22, 2013).
"DAVIS v. BEASON," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed May 22, 2013, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1889/1889_1261.