Cases - 1942 term

West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette

Thu, 11 Mar 1943 13:00:00 +0000

Location

West Virginia Board of Education

1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston WV 25305

Charleston, WV 25305

United States

38° 20' 16.6344" N, 81° 36' 36.72" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

591

Petitioner

West Virginia State Board of Ed.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barnette

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1943

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1943

Facts of the Case

The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency.

Question

Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Barnette, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Amend 1; W. Va. Code § 1734

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas. "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court held, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values. Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Hirabayashi v. United States

Mon, 10 May 1943 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

870

Petitioner

Hirabayashi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

320 U.S. 81 (1943)

Argued

Monday, May 10, 1943

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1943

Facts of the Case

In the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt acted to prevent incidents of subversion and espionage from individuals of Japanese descent living in the United States. He issued two executive orders which were quickly enacted into law. One gave the Secretary of War the power to designate certain parts of the country "military areas" and exclude certain persons from them. The second established the War Relocation Authority which had the power to remove, maintain, and supervise persons who were excluded from the military areas. Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, was convicted of violating a curfew and relocation order.

Question

Did the President's executive orders and the power delegated to the military authorities discriminate against Americans and resident aliens of Japanese descent in violation of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

The Court found the President's orders and the implementation of the curfew to be constitutional. Chief Justice Stone, writing for the unanimous Court, took into account the great importance of military installations and weapons production that occurred on the West Coast and the "solidarity" that individuals of Japanese descent felt with their motherland. He reasoned that restrictions on Japanese actions served an important national interest. The Court ducked the thorny relocation issue and focused solely on the curfew, which the Court viewed as a necessary "protective measure." Stone argued that racial discrimination was justified since "in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry."

Wickard v. Filburn

Tue, 13 Oct 1942 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Roscoe Filburn's Farm

5200 Salem Ave Dayton OH 45426

Dayton, OH 45426

United States

39° 49' 17.5332" N, 84° 16' 50.1456" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wickard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Filburn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1942-1943)

Decided By

Stone Court (1942-1943)

Opinion

317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1942

Decided

Monday, November 9, 1942

Facts of the Case

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

Question

Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wickard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Agricultural Adjustment Act

According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

Murdock v. Pennsylvania

jgoldman — Wed, 10 Mar 1943 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Borough of Jeannette Jeannette, PA 15644

United States

40° 19' 40.9224" N, 79° 36' 50.7636" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

480

Petitioner

Robert Murdock et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 481, Perisich v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 482, Mowder v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 483, Seders v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 484, Lamborn v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 485, Maltezos v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 486, Anastasia Tzanes v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

No. 487, Ellaine Tzanes v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette)

Heard By

Stone Court (1942-1943)

Decided By

Stone Court (1942-1943)

Opinion

319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Argued

March 10-11, 1943

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1943

Advocates

Hayden C. Covington (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Fred B. Trescher (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Borough of Jeannette, Pennsylvania mandated that all solicitors that sold goods within the borough purchase a solicitation license. Robert Murdock was a Jehovah's Witness who canvassed door to door within Jeannette, offering religious texts in exchange for donations. He and other Jehovah's Witnesses were arrested for their solicitation of their texts. They were convicted and fined for violating Jeannette's ordinance. The Jehovah's Witnesses appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, alleging that the ordinance violated the Free Speech, Free Press, and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment. The Superior Court upheld the ordinance and their convictions, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declined to hear their appeal.

Question

Did Jeannette's ordinance violate the Freedom of Speech, Press, and Religion clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and held the ordinance unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas characterized the Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in the borough as "more than preaching" and "more than distribution of religious literature." Their door-to-door activities, though unconventional, "occupie[d] the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits." The Court recognized the need of the Jehovah's Witnesses to sustain themselves. Though the organization solicited donations in their distribution of literature, "freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way." While the borough did have an interest in preserving the public peace, the Jehovah's Witnesses were soliciting "peacefully and quietly." The ordinance did not further the borough's interest in restricting the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Martin v. Struthers

jgoldman — Thu, 11 Mar 1943 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Struthers

6 Elm Street Struthers OH 44471

Struthers, OH 44471

United States

41° 3' 23.2056" N, 80° 35' 28.68" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

238

Appellant

Martin

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

City of Struthers, Ohio

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

319 U.S. 141 (1943)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1943

Decided

Tuesday, May 11, 1943

Advocates

Hayden C. Covington (argued the cause for the appellant)

David C. Haynes (argued the cause for the appellee)

T. T. Macejko (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Martin was a Jehovah's Witness in Struthers, Ohio. She canvassed neighborhoods knocking on doors and ringing doorbells to distribute leaflets promoting a meeting. She was convicted and fined $10 for violating a city ordinance that prohibited a person who was distributing leaflets and other flyers from knocking on doors and ringing doorbells. She appealed her conviction in the Circuit Court of Mahoning County, alleging that the city ordinance violated her First Amendment free speech and free press rights. The Circuit Court upheld the ordinance and her conviction. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed her appeal.

Question

Did the city ordinance prohibiting the ringing of doorbells and knocking on doors by a person distributing promotional materials violate the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio and held Struthers' ordinance unconstitutional. In the majority opinion written by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court acknowledged the city's interest in preventing crime and reducing nuisances. However, alternative solutions, such as trespassing laws, were also available that could achieve the city's purpose. Activities like Martin's were "so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved." The ordinance was overly restrictive on door-to-door distributors, and therefore unconstitutional.