McGowan v. Maryland
366 U.S. 420 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's Sunday Closing Law does not violate the Establishment Clause if it has a secular purpose, such as providing a uniform day of rest for all citizens, even if the law's origin was religious and it indirectly benefits religions that observe Sunday as a day of rest.
Facts:
- Appellants were seven employees of a large discount department store located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
- Maryland's "Sunday Blue Laws" generally prohibited labor and the sale of most merchandise on Sunday.
- The state laws contained numerous exceptions, allowing the Sunday sale of items such as tobacco, milk, bread, gasoline, and newspapers.
- In Anne Arundel County specifically, additional exceptions permitted the Sunday operation of bathing beaches and amusement parks, and the sale of merchandise customarily sold at such locations.
- Other recreational activities and the sale of alcoholic beverages were also permitted on Sunday in the county under certain conditions.
- The seven employees were charged for selling a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler and staples, and a toy submarine on a Sunday, items not covered by any exception applicable to their store.
Procedural Posture:
- Seven employees (Appellants) were indicted in a Maryland state trial court for violating the state's Sunday Closing Law.
- At trial, the employees argued the law was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The trial court convicted the employees and fined each five dollars plus costs.
- The employees appealed their convictions to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 Maryland's Sunday Closing Law, which generally prohibits the sale of merchandise on Sunday but contains numerous exceptions for commercial and recreational activities, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
No, Maryland's Sunday Closing Law does not violate the Establishment Clause. While the historical origins of Sunday Closing Laws are undeniably religious, their present purpose and effect are secular. The Court found that the modern objective of the legislation is not to aid religion but to set aside a uniform day of rest, repose, and recreation for the public welfare. The state has a legitimate secular interest in promoting the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens by providing a common day for family and community activities. The fact that this day coincides with the Christian Sabbath is not enough to invalidate the law, as the Establishment Clause does not prohibit regulations that merely happen to harmonize with the tenets of a religion. The Court distinguished this from direct state action aiding religion, such as in McCollum v. Board of Education, because these laws do not coerce church attendance or involve direct state participation in religious affairs. The numerous exceptions in the law were also upheld against an equal protection challenge, as the legislature could rationally conclude that the sale of certain items and the allowance of certain activities are necessary for the enjoyment of a day of rest and recreation.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes, Maryland's Sunday Closing Law violates the Establishment Clause. The law's historical roots in the Fourth Commandment and its direct alignment with Christian practices demonstrate that it is religious in nature, not secular. By putting the state's coercive power behind the observance of the Christian Sabbath, the law prefers one religion over others and uses criminal sanctions to compel adherence to the majority's religious customs. This constitutes an 'establishment' of religion. Furthermore, it infringes on the free exercise of religion by imposing a significant economic burden on Sabbatarians, such as Orthodox Jews, who must close their businesses on both their own Sabbath (Saturday) and the state-mandated day of rest (Sunday). The argument that the law serves a civil purpose is a pretext; if the goal were merely a day of rest, the state could mandate one day off in seven without specifying Sunday.
Analysis:
McGowan v. Maryland is a landmark decision that established the modern framework for analyzing laws with religious origins under the Establishment Clause. The Court's focus on the law's 'secular purpose and effect' allows for the constitutionality of statutes that may have been religiously motivated in the past but can now be justified by secular public welfare concerns. This ruling gives significant deference to state legislatures to regulate for the general welfare, even when those regulations align with the practices of majority religions. The decision effectively insulated Sunday Blue Laws from constitutional attack and set a precedent that a law's incidental benefit to religion does not render it unconstitutional, a principle that would heavily influence future Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
