Cantwell v. Connecticut

Supreme Court of United States
310 U.S. 296 (1940)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states from requiring a license for religious solicitation when the license's issuance depends on an official's discretionary determination of what constitutes a 'religious cause.' States also cannot convict individuals for breach of the peace for expressing unpopular religious views unless their speech poses a clear and present danger to public order.

Facts:

Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, were Jehovah's Witnesses who proselytized in a predominantly Roman Catholic neighborhood in New Haven, Connecticut.
They traveled door-to-door with books, pamphlets, and a portable phonograph with records.
After gaining permission, they would play a record for residents that included an attack on organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church.
The Cantwells solicited donations and offered to sell books to those who listened to the records.
Jesse Cantwell stopped two Catholic men on a public street and, with their permission, played the anti-Catholic record for them.
The two men were angered by the record's content, and one testified he was tempted to strike Cantwell.
No violence occurred; upon being told to leave, Jesse Cantwell peacefully packed his materials and departed.

Procedural Posture:

Newton Cantwell and his sons were charged and convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County for violating a state solicitation statute and for the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
The state Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for all three defendants on the statutory violation count.
The state Supreme Court also affirmed the breach of the peace conviction for Jesse Cantwell, but it reversed that conviction for Newton and Russell Cantwell.
The Cantwells appealed their affirmed convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do state actions that (1) require a license for religious solicitation based on a public official's discretionary determination of what is a 'religious cause' and (2) convict an individual for common law breach of the peace for expressing offensive religious views, violate the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Roberts

Yes. The state statute and the common law conviction violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom, making them applicable to the states. The opinion established a distinction between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to act, which is subject to regulation. The Connecticut statute was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedom to act because it gave a state official the discretionary power to determine whether a cause was 'religious' before issuing a required solicitation certificate, effectively censoring religious expression. Regarding the breach of the peace conviction, the Court found that Jesse Cantwell's speech, while offensive to the listeners, did not constitute a 'clear and present danger' to public peace. His conduct was not personally abusive or threatening, and punishing speech merely because it stirs anger or offends religious sensibilities would unconstitutionally suppress the free communication of ideas.

Analysis:

Cantwell v. Connecticut is a landmark decision that incorporated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, making it applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This case established the critical 'belief-action' dichotomy, clarifying that while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct can be regulated by neutral, non-discretionary laws. The ruling's strong condemnation of prior restraints on religious speech set a major precedent against licensing schemes that give officials subjective power over religious expression. Furthermore, by applying the 'clear and present danger' test to a breach of the peace charge, the Court significantly strengthened protections for provocative or unpopular speech, ensuring it cannot be suppressed simply for being offensive.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature