Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1940

Cantwell v. Connecticut

310 U.S. 296 | 60 S. Ct. 900 | 84 L. Ed. 1213 | 1940 U.S. LEXIS 591 | 128 A.L.R. 1352

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case applied the First Amendment’s protections of religious exercise and expression to the states and barred both discretionary licensing of religious solicitation and punishment of peaceful religious advocacy merely because it offended its audience.

Background

Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jesse and Russell, were Jehovah’s Witnesses who went door to door in a predominantly Catholic New Haven neighborhood. They carried religious books and pamphlets, a portable phonograph, and records describing the books. With a listener’s permission, they played a record and then sought either a purchase or a contribution toward publication. One record, titled “Enemies,” sharply criticized the Roman Catholic Church.

Connecticut charged all three Cantwells with violating a statute that barred solicitation for an alleged religious, charitable, or philanthropic cause without prior approval from the state public welfare council’s secretary. The secretary was empowered to decide whether a cause was religious and bona fide before issuing a certificate. The Cantwells were also charged with common-law incitement of a breach of the peace. Jesse’s charge arose after he played “Enemies” for two Catholic pedestrians, who became angry and felt tempted to strike him.

The trial court convicted each defendant on the licensing count and convicted Jesse on the breach-of-the-peace count. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed all licensing convictions and Jesse’s breach-of-the-peace conviction, while reversing the comparable convictions of Newton and Russell. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the licensing judgments by appeal and Jesse’s common-law conviction by certiorari.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had authority to review the Connecticut judgments on both the licensing and breach-of-the-peace counts.

Holding

Yes. The Court could review the licensing convictions by appeal because Connecticut upheld a state statute against a federal constitutional challenge, and it could review Jesse Cantwell’s breach-of-the-peace conviction by certiorari because it presented a substantial federal constitutional question.

Reasoning

The Cantwells consistently argued that the licensing statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment by burdening religious exercise and speech. Because the Connecticut Supreme Court sustained the statute’s validity against that federal challenge, the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over the convictions resting on the statute.

The breach-of-the-peace conviction did not rest on a statute, but it raised a substantial question whether Connecticut had applied its common law in a manner inconsistent with the freedoms protected through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court therefore granted certiorari to consider Jesse Cantwell’s conviction on that count.

Issue #2

Whether Connecticut could require prior approval from a state official before a person could solicit contributions for a religious cause.

Holding

No. The statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it conditioned religious solicitation on an official’s discretionary determination that the cause was religious.

Reasoning

The Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment’s protections of religious liberty applicable to the states. Religious freedom includes both an absolute freedom to hold beliefs and a protected, though regulable, freedom to act on those beliefs. A state may regulate conduct to protect society, but it may not pursue permissible ends by unnecessarily burdening protected religious exercise.

Connecticut had a legitimate interest in protecting the public from fraud in charitable and religious fundraising. It could use neutral, nondiscriminatory rules governing the time, place, and manner of solicitation, require solicitors to establish their identity and authority, and punish actual fraud. But the statute did not merely regulate solicitation; without a certificate, it prohibited solicitation altogether.

The statute made the right to solicit depend on the welfare council secretary’s judgment whether a cause was religious. That arrangement empowered a state official to appraise religious claims and to decide which causes qualified for permission to seek support. Such governmental censorship of religion imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of religious liberty.

The possibility of later judicial review did not cure the constitutional defect. Even if a court could correct arbitrary or capricious action by the secretary, the statute still forced religious speakers to obtain prior government approval before they could solicit aid for their beliefs.

Issue #3

Whether Jesse Cantwell’s peaceful playing of an anti-Catholic record to consenting listeners could constitutionally support a conviction for inciting a breach of the peace.

Holding

No. The record was offensive and provoked anger, but Cantwell’s conduct created no clear and present danger to public peace or order sufficient to justify his conviction.

Reasoning

The Court recognized the conflict between Connecticut’s interest in preserving public order and the constitutional interests in religious exercise and free communication of opinion. States may punish incitement to riot, threats, and conduct that creates an immediate danger of disorder. They also may enact narrowly tailored laws directed at particular public-safety, traffic, noise, or privacy concerns.

But Jesse Cantwell was on a public street where he had a right to be, obtained the pedestrians’ permission before playing the record, and neither threatened nor personally abused them. His conduct was not noisy, truculent, overbearing, or otherwise disruptive; the phonograph did not draw a crowd, obstruct traffic, or disturb nearby residents.

The record’s attack on Catholicism naturally offended its listeners, and the listeners became angry enough to contemplate violence. Yet Cantwell did not seek to provoke a fight or direct abusive epithets at either man. His communication was an effort to advance his religious views, not an assault, threat, or personal insult.

A broad and undefined common-law breach-of-the-peace rule could not be used to suppress protected expression merely because listeners reacted with hostility. In the absence of a narrowly drawn law addressing specific conduct that posed a clear and present danger to a substantial state interest, the offense to the listeners did not establish the immediate menace to peace and order required for punishment.