Schneider v. New Jersey

Supreme Court of United States
308 U.S. 147 (1939)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A municipality's interest in preventing littering is insufficient to justify an ordinance that completely prohibits distributing literature on public streets. Similarly, a municipality cannot require individuals to obtain a discretionary permit from a police official before engaging in door-to-door advocacy, as such a requirement acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedoms of speech and press.

Facts:

In Los Angeles, Kim Young distributed handbills on a public sidewalk announcing a meeting sponsored by the 'Friends Lincoln Brigade' to discuss the war in Spain.
In Milwaukee, a picket in a labor dispute distributed handbills to pedestrians in front of a meat market. Some recipients threw the handbills on the ground, and police, following department policy, arrested the distributor rather than those who littered.
In Worcester, Massachusetts, individuals distributed leaflets on a public street to announce a protest meeting concerning the administration of state unemployment insurance. Some recipients discarded the leaflets onto the street.
In Irvington, New Jersey, Clara Schneider, a Jehovah's Witness, went door-to-door distributing religious booklets and soliciting small contributions without first obtaining a required police permit.
The Irvington permit process required an applicant's personal information, photograph, and fingerprints, and granted the Chief of Police discretion to deny the permit if the canvasser was not of 'good character' or the project was not 'free from fraud'.

Procedural Posture:

No. 13 (Los Angeles): Kim Young was convicted in the Municipal Court, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (the highest state court with jurisdiction) affirmed the conviction. Young appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
No. 18 (Milwaukee): The petitioner was convicted in the Milwaukee County court, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the judgment. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
No. 29 (Worcester): The appellants were convicted in the Superior Court of Worcester County, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed by overruling exceptions. The appellants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
No. 11 (Irvington): Clara Schneider was convicted in the Recorder's Court. The Court of Common Pleas, the New Jersey Supreme Court, and finally the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals (the state's highest court) all affirmed the conviction. Schneider sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 municipal ordinances that either (a) absolutely prohibit the distribution of handbills on public streets to prevent littering, or (b) require a discretionary permit from a police official for door-to-door distribution of literature, abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts

Yes. These ordinances unconstitutionally abridge the freedoms of speech and press. While municipalities have a duty to keep streets open and safe, their interest in preventing litter is not substantial enough to justify a complete ban on the distribution of literature to willing recipients on public streets. The proper remedy is to punish those who actually litter, not those who are exercising their constitutional right to communicate. Streets are a natural and proper public forum for the dissemination of information, and the right to speak there cannot be denied on the plea that it may be exercised elsewhere. Furthermore, the Irvington ordinance creates an unconstitutional prior restraint by vesting a police official with the discretionary power to act as a censor, determining who may speak and what may be said based on a vague assessment of character and content. Such censorship strikes at the core of the First Amendment's protections.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds

No reasoning was provided. Justice McReynolds stated only that he was of the opinion that the judgment in each case should be affirmed.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in First Amendment law, solidifying the public forum doctrine by affirming that public streets are quintessential venues for the dissemination of information and opinion. It establishes the principle that a government's interest in aesthetics and convenience, such as preventing litter, cannot justify a broad prohibition of expressive activity like handbilling. The decision also powerfully reaffirms the judiciary's strong opposition to prior restraints, holding that licensing schemes that grant government officials unfettered discretion to permit or deny speech are facially unconstitutional. This precedent serves as a crucial bulwark against content-based censorship and protects a wide range of political, religious, and social advocacy from undue government interference.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)

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