Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1943

Murdock v. Pennsylvania

319 U.S. 105 | 63 S. Ct. 870 | 87 L. Ed. 1292 | 1943 U.S. LEXIS 711 | 146 A.L.R. 81

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 holds that a city may not impose a flat license tax as the price of engaging in door-to-door religious evangelism and literature distribution, even when contributors are asked to pay for the materials.

Background

Jehovah’s Witnesses went door to door in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, distributing religious books and pamphlets published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. They requested contributions of twenty-five cents for books and five cents for pamphlets, but would accept less or give literature away when an interested person lacked money. They also used phonograph records to convey their religious message.

A city ordinance required persons canvassing or soliciting orders for goods or merchandise to obtain a license and pay a flat fee ranging from $1.50 per day to $20 for three weeks. The Witnesses did not obtain licenses, made some literature distributions, and were convicted and fined. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the convictions, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied discretionary review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether door-to-door distribution of religious literature in exchange for requested contributions is protected religious expression or merely a commercial book-selling enterprise.

Holding

It is protected religious activity and expression; the requested contributions did not convert the Witnesses’ evangelism into a purely commercial enterprise.

Reasoning

The Court treated the Witnesses’ personal visits and distribution of literature as an established form of missionary evangelism. This activity combined preaching with the circulation of religious ideas and therefore stood on the same constitutional footing as church worship and preaching from a pulpit under the Free Exercise, Speech, and Press Clauses.

The fact that the Witnesses requested money for books and pamphlets did not make them ordinary retail sellers. Religious organizations need financial support, and literature may be distributed at a price to defray expenses or sustain the religious mission without losing its protected character. Otherwise, routine church collections could likewise be characterized as commercial activity.

The Court acknowledged that distinguishing religious activity from purely commercial activity can sometimes be difficult. But on this record, the nominal charges, willingness to accept less or nothing, and central evangelical purpose showed that the sales aspect was incidental to disseminating religious beliefs rather than the object of a commercial venture.

Issue #2

Whether a municipality may require religious colporteurs to pay a flat license tax as a condition of going door to door to distribute religious literature and solicit contributions.

Holding

No. A flat license tax imposed as a prerequisite to exercising these First Amendment freedoms is unconstitutional.

Reasoning

The First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the free exercise of religion and freedoms of speech and press. A tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms is unconstitutional in substance, even when the city labels it a generally applicable license requirement.

Jeannette’s charge was a flat tax imposed in advance as the price of engaging in protected activity. It was unrelated either to the scope of the Witnesses’ work or to their receipts, and it was not a nominal fee calculated to cover the costs of administering a valid regulatory system.

A government that can require payment for the privilege of missionary evangelism can make that activity prohibitively expensive, especially when similar exactions accumulate from town to town. The constitutional problem therefore lay in conditioning the exercise of First Amendment rights on payment, not in proof that these particular fees had already stopped the Witnesses’ work.

Nondiscriminatory treatment did not save the ordinance. The city could not constitutionally place religious speech, press activity, and evangelism in the same taxable category as ordinary peddling merely because it taxed all solicitors alike. The protected privilege existed independently of any benefit conferred by the city.

Issue #3

Whether the city’s interests in preventing solicitation-related abuses, maintaining order, or identifying door-to-door visitors justified this license-tax scheme.

Holding

No. Those legitimate interests could support appropriately tailored regulation, but they did not justify this revenue-raising license tax.

Reasoning

The Court did not hold that religious solicitors were immune from all laws. States may punish breaches of the peace, regulate conduct that threatens public safety or convenience, and adopt reasonable identification or registration measures for door-to-door solicitors.

But the Witnesses were not charged with disorderly conduct, abusive or inciting speech, trespass, or any other solicitation-related misconduct. Nor was the ordinance narrowly designed to protect householders against specific abuses or to identify strangers entering the community.

Unlike a modest regulatory fee that defrays the cost of administering a valid local regulation, the ordinance imposed a fixed tax for revenue as a condition of entry into residential areas. That prior restraint on door-to-door religious communication abridged freedoms of religion, speech, and press.

Dissents

Justice Reed

Reasoning

Justice Reed viewed the transactions as sales of religious books and pamphlets, not as the performance of a religious rite. The Witnesses generally offered books at fixed prices, acquired them from the Watch Tower Society at lower prices, and used the proceeds to finance their religious work. In his view, a religious purpose did not erase the commercial character of selling literature.

He argued that the First Amendment protects religion and expression from censorship, prohibition, discrimination, and genuinely burdensome restraints, but does not confer a general exemption from ordinary, nondiscriminatory taxation. Churches, clergy, and publishers may ordinarily bear income, property, and other governmental taxes; in his view, the same principle permitted a reasonable occupational tax on those selling books door to door.

Reed stressed that the petitioners had neither claimed nor proved that the fees were excessive, oppressive, discriminatory, or actually restrictive of their work. The majority, he argued, invalidated the ordinances based on the abstract possibility that a taxing power could be abused, rather than any demonstrated constitutional injury from these taxes.

He also rejected the majority’s analogy to state taxes on interstate commerce. The constitutional restriction on a state taxing interstate commerce follows from the federal allocation of authority over commerce, whereas the First Amendment contains no equally clear command that religious or press activities are exempt from privilege taxes. Justice Roberts, Justice Frankfurter, and Justice Jackson joined this dissent.

Justice Frankfurter

Reasoning

Justice Frankfurter agreed that a tax may be unconstitutional if it deliberately discriminates against protected expression or actually imposes an unjustifiable burden on religious activity. But he emphasized that neither proposition was established here: the Witnesses did not contend that the fees were oppressive in operation, and the record showed no discriminatory application against them or their faith.

In his view, calling the exaction a flat license tax did not itself decide the constitutional question. Occupation taxes commonly require persons engaged in the same activity to pay the same amount, and a constitutional right does not automatically preclude every tax that incidentally falls on its exercise. The relevant inquiry was the tax’s justification and its actual burden.

The city supplied benefits and services to persons using its streets and going door to door, including public order and security. Since the Witnesses had not shown that the charges exceeded a justifiable contribution toward governmental costs or interfered with their activities, Frankfurter concluded that the ordinances should stand.

He warned that the majority’s rule effectively required the community to subsidize religious literature distribution. In his judgment, equal participation in ordinary governmental costs was compatible with, rather than hostile to, the constitutional separation of church and state. Justice Jackson joined this dissent.