Cases - 1939 term

Minersville School District v. Gobitis

Thu, 25 Apr 1940 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Minersville School District

1 Battlin' Miner Drive Minsersville PA 17954

Minsersville, PA 17954

United States

40° 41' 25.2168" N, 76° 15' 29.9232" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

690

Petitioner

Minersville School District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gobitis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Opinion

310 U.S. 586 (1940)

Argued

Thursday, April 25, 1940

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1940

Facts of the Case

Lillian and William Gobitis were expelled from the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the flag as part of a daily school exercise. The Gobitis children were Jehovah's Witnesses; they believed that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by Biblical commands.

Question

Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court declined to make itself "the school board for the country" and upheld the mandatory flag salute. The Court held that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values" and that national unity was "the basis of national security." The flag, the Court found, was an important symbol of national unity and could be a part of legislative initiatives designed "to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country."

Thornhill v. Alabama

Thu, 29 Feb 1940 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

514

Petitioner

Thornhill

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Opinion

310 U.S. 88 (1940)

Argued

Thursday, February 29, 1940

Decided

Monday, April 22, 1940

Facts of the Case

Byron Thornhill joined a picket line that was protesting against his former employer. Section 3448 of Alabama state law made it an offense to picket. Pursuant to the law, Thornhill was arrested and fined $100. Thornhill, a union president, was the only picketer to be arrested and tried under the law.

Question

Did the Alabama law violate Thornhill's right to free expression under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that Section 3448 of the Alabama State Code was facially invalid. The Court held that labor relations were "not matters of mere local or private concern," and that free discussion concerning labor conditions and industrial disputes was "indispensable to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of popular government to shape the destiny of modern industrial society." The Court found that no clear and present danger of destruction of life or property or of breach of the peace was inherent to labor picketing, and thus deserved First Amendment protection.

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut

Fri, 29 Mar 1940 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Neighborhood Street

Cassius Street New Haven CT 06519

New Haven, CT 06519

United States

41° 17' 32.8416" N, 72° 55' 49.5156" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

632

Petitioner

Cantwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State of Connecticut

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1940-1941)

Opinion

310 U.S. 296 (1940)

Argued

Friday, March 29, 1940

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1940

Facts of the Case

Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; they were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. The Cantwells distributed religious materials by travelling door-to-door and by approaching people on the street. After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.

Question

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.

Schneider v. State of New Jersey

jgoldman — Fri, 13 Oct 1939 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Irvington Township Irvington, NJ

United States

40° 43' 19.0632" N, 74° 13' 59.7972" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Clara Schneider

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State of New Jersey

Consolidation

No. 13, Young v. People of the State of California

No. 18, Snyder v. City of Milwaukee

No. 29, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Heard By

Hughes Court (1938-1939)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1938-1939)

Opinion

308 U.S. 147 (1939)

Argued

Friday, October 13, 1939, Monday, October 16, 1939

Decided

Wednesday, November 22, 1939

Advocates

Joseph F. Rutherford (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 11)

Robert I. Morris (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 11)

Osmond K. Fraenkel (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 13)

A. L. Wirin (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 18 and for the appellants in No. 29)

Sidney S. Grant (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 18)

Edward O. Proctor (argued the cause for the appellee in No. 29)

Facts of the Case

Municipal codes in four cities across the United States--Milwaukee, WI, Los Angeles, CA, Worchester, MA, and Irvington, NJ--banned hand-to-hand distribution of pamphlets in public places and private residences. Defendants convicted of violating these ordinances in each city argued that the ordinances were invalidated by the fundamental constitutional protection of free speech. The cities argued that the bans upheld their municipal prerogative to keep streets clean and reduce littering. Upon appeal in each case, the Supreme Court consolidated the four.

Question

Do the interests of cities in reducing littering justify encroachments upon the First Amendment by banning the hand-to-hand distribution of pamphlets in public places and private residences?

Conclusion

No. Justice Owen J. Roberts delivered the opinion of a unanimous court. The First Amendment right to free speech was fundamental and substantially impaired by the bans against distributing pamphlets. The burden on cities of upholding First Amendment free speech outweighed the burdens of cleaning up litter caused by hand-to-hand pamphleteering. The cities could regulate dishonest pamphleteering and legislate in order to keep streets freely accessible, but could not outlaw one citizen's attempt to impart information to another citizen through the means of passing out written documents.