Hopkins v. State
193 Md. 489, 69 A.2d 456 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, through general and non-discriminatory legislation, regulate conduct related to the commercial solicitation of marriages without violating the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, as the freedom to act is not absolute and may be regulated for the peace and good order of the community.
Facts:
- Rev. William F. Hopkins, a minister, maintained an illuminated sign with his name and title, 'Rev. W. F. Hopkins,' at the entrance to his home in Elkton, Maryland.
- Hopkins also maintained an illuminated sign along a highway leading into Elkton which read, 'W. F. Hopkins, Notary Public, Information.'
- Elkton, Maryland, had become a popular destination for out-of-state couples to marry due to less stringent marriage laws.
- In a single month, Hopkins performed 286 marriages, of which only three involved residents of Cecil County.
- The State of Maryland passed the statute in question to curb what it considered unethical commercial practices that had developed around the marriage business in towns like Elkton.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Maryland charged Rev. Hopkins in the Circuit Court for Cecil County with violating a state statute prohibiting signs that solicit marriages.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction against Rev. Hopkins.
- Rev. Hopkins (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Maryland statute that makes it unlawful to erect or maintain any sign intended to aid in the solicitation or performance of marriages violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Delaplaine, J.
No. The Maryland statute does not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The First Amendment embraces two concepts: the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to act, which is not. While the state cannot compel the acceptance of any creed, it can regulate conduct to protect societal peace, order, and comfort through general and non-discriminatory legislation. Marriage is a civil contract regulated by law, and the state has a legitimate interest in curbing the unethical commercialization of marriage ceremonies. The statute targets the conduct of solicitation, not religious belief or the performance of a religious ceremony itself, much like prohibitions on polygamy have been upheld against religious challenges.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important legal distinction between religious belief and religious conduct, affirming that conduct, even when religiously motivated, is not exempt from neutral, generally applicable laws. It solidifies the state's police power to regulate activities that, while potentially having a religious component, have taken on the character of a commercial enterprise deemed harmful to public order and morals. The case serves as a precedent for states to legislate against the commercialization of religious services to prevent what the legislature considers unethical practices, without running afoul of the Free Exercise Clause.
Unlock the full brief for Hopkins v. State