Poulos v. New Hampshire
97 L. Ed. 2d 1105, 345 U.S. 395, 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2606 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a licensing ordinance for public speech is constitutionally valid on its face as a non-discriminatory time, place, and manner regulation, an individual who is arbitrarily and wrongfully denied a license must seek judicial review of the denial and cannot use the wrongful denial as a defense in a criminal prosecution for speaking without the license.
Facts:
- Poulos, a Jehovah's Witness, sought a license from the City Council of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to conduct religious services in Goodwin Park on two specific dates.
- Poulos and his associate complied with all procedural requirements for the license application and offered to pay all proper fees.
- The Portsmouth City Council arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to grant Poulos a license.
- Despite the refusal, Poulos proceeded to hold the religious services as planned in Goodwin Park.
- Poulos was subsequently arrested and charged with violating the city ordinance that requires a license for open-air public meetings.
Procedural Posture:
- Poulos was convicted in the Portsmouth Municipal Court for violating a city ordinance.
- Poulos appealed his conviction to the New Hampshire Superior Court, which granted him a new trial.
- Before the new trial, Poulos's constitutional challenge to the ordinance was transferred to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which ruled the ordinance's licensing provision was valid but that discretion in granting licenses was limited.
- The case returned to the Superior Court for trial, which found that the city's refusal to grant Poulos a license was arbitrary and unreasonable.
- Despite this finding, the Superior Court convicted Poulos, ruling that his proper remedy was to seek civil review of the denial (certiorari), not to violate the ordinance.
- Poulos appealed the conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction, holding that the state's procedural rule requiring a civil challenge to a wrongful license denial was proper.
- Poulos appealed the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision 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 the First Amendment permit the conviction of an individual for holding a religious meeting in a public park without a license, where the license was required by a valid ordinance but was arbitrarily and unreasonably denied by city officials?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
Yes. The First Amendment does not prevent a state from convicting an individual for speaking without a license required by a valid ordinance, even when that license has been wrongfully denied. The ordinance itself is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation because the state court's interpretation stripped licensing officials of discretion, making it a ministerial permit scheme to ensure public order. Because the ordinance is valid, the proper remedy for an arbitrary administrative refusal is not to violate the law, but to seek judicial correction through procedures like certiorari or mandamus. Allowing individuals to defy valid laws due to administrative error would undermine public order, and the delay and expense of litigation is a necessary price for living in an orderly society. This case is distinct from those where the underlying statutes were facially unconstitutional, as here, the ordinance was valid and a state judicial remedy was available.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes. The conviction should be affirmed, but the majority's discussion of the ordinance's facial constitutionality is unnecessary because the appellant conceded it was valid on its face. The only issue properly before the Court is whether New Hampshire's procedural rule—requiring a person wrongfully denied a license to seek mandamus rather than using the denial as a defense in a criminal prosecution—violates due process. New Hampshire is constitutionally permitted to require that legal challenges to the denial of a license under a valid system be adjudicated through an appropriate civil procedure, not as a defense to a penal action, provided a prompt judicial remedy is available.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The state cannot convict a person for exercising their First Amendment right to speak after being illegally, arbitrarily, and unreasonably denied a license. Freedom of speech holds a special, protected position under the Constitution, distinguishing it from regulated commercial activities like running a business or storing explosives. The state officials denied Poulos his constitutional right of free speech, and punishing him for exercising that right constitutes a 'creeping censorship' that the First Amendment prohibits.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. Any system that requires a citizen to obtain permission before making a speech is an unconstitutional prior restraint, regardless of whether the restraint comes from a legislature or an administrative official. A citizen is entitled to flout a lawless act, and an official's arbitrary denial of a constitutional right is as lawless as an unconstitutional statute. The burden of spending months or years in court to win a right that the Constitution already guarantees is itself a denial of that right. As held in Cantwell v. Connecticut, the availability of judicial review does not save a licensing system that acts as a prior restraint on free speech.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between challenging a law as facially unconstitutional versus challenging its unconstitutional application. It created a rule that a facially valid licensing scheme must be obeyed, and any wrongful application must be challenged through the judicial process (e.g., mandamus) rather than through defiance. This decision limits collateral attacks on administrative actions within criminal proceedings, placing the onus on the individual to correct official errors through the court system. The holding reinforces the state's power to maintain order through reasonable regulations, even when its agents err, thereby prioritizing administrative order over an individual's immediate exercise of a wrongfully denied right.
