Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment
100 S. Ct. 826, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 78, 63 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that prohibits charitable solicitation by organizations that spend more than 25% of their receipts on solicitation and administrative costs is an unconstitutionally overbroad infringement on First Amendment free speech rights, as it unduly burdens advocacy organizations whose primary purpose involves research, public education, and advocacy.
Facts:
- The Village of Schaumburg enacted an ordinance requiring any charitable organization soliciting contributions door-to-door to obtain a permit.
- To obtain a permit, the ordinance required an organization to provide satisfactory proof that at least 75% of its proceeds would be used directly for its stated charitable purpose.
- The ordinance explicitly defined 'charitable purpose' to exclude salaries paid to solicitors, administrative expenses, rent, telephone costs, and other overhead items.
- Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), a non-profit environmental advocacy corporation, engaged in door-to-door canvassing to distribute literature, discuss environmental issues, and solicit financial contributions.
- CBE's operational model involved paying salaries to its canvassers and staff, causing its administrative and fundraising costs to exceed 25% of its receipts.
- The Village of Schaumburg denied CBE a solicitation permit because the organization could not meet the ordinance's 75% requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) sued the Village of Schaumburg in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- CBE moved for summary judgment, arguing the ordinance was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment for CBE, declaring the 75% requirement void on its face and enjoining its enforcement.
- The Village of Schaumburg, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding the ordinance was facially unreasonable.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 municipal ordinance that prohibits charitable organizations from soliciting contributions if they do not use at least 75% of their receipts for charitable purposes, excluding administrative and solicitation costs, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The municipal ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The Court reasoned that charitable solicitation is a protected First Amendment activity that is characteristically intertwined with advocacy and the dissemination of ideas, especially for organizations whose primary purposes are public education, research, and advocacy. The ordinance's rigid 75% rule operates as a direct and substantial limitation on this speech by barring legitimate advocacy organizations, which necessarily incur significant salary and administrative costs to fulfill their missions, from soliciting funds. The Village’s stated interests in preventing fraud, ensuring public safety, and protecting residential privacy are not sufficiently served by this prophylactic rule, and less restrictive means, such as enforcing anti-fraud laws and mandating financial disclosure, are available.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The municipal ordinance does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is a rational regulation related to the community's interest in ensuring contributions go to truly charitable organizations. The dissent argued that a simple request for money lies far from the core of First Amendment protections and that the community has a right to distinguish between legitimate charities and organizations that are primarily fundraising for their own benefit. The majority's decision creates a vague, unworkable distinction between advocacy groups and other charities, leaving municipalities without clear guidance on how to regulate door-to-door solicitation. This ordinance, which leaves no discretion to officials, is a valid exercise of local regulatory power to protect residents from panhandlers and profiteers.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded First Amendment protections for charitable solicitation, particularly for advocacy-oriented organizations. By rejecting a fixed-percentage limitation on fundraising costs, the Court formally recognized that for many groups, advocacy and fundraising are inseparable activities. This precedent requires government regulations of charitable solicitation to be narrowly tailored and makes it extremely difficult to justify broad, prophylactic rules that do not account for the varying operational models of different non-profits. The ruling effectively forces regulators to use more precise means, such as disclosure laws or direct fraud enforcement, rather than relying on arbitrary financial thresholds to define legitimacy.
