Follett v. Town of McCormick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Follett v. Town of McCormick | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued Feb. 11, 1944 Decided Mar. 27, 1944 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Harlan Fiske Stone Associate Justices: Owen Josephus Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: William O. Douglas Concurrence by: Stanley Forman Reed Joined by: Frank Murphy Dissent by: Owen Josephus Roberts, Felix Frankfurter,Robert H. Jackson |
Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.
Contents |
[edit] Facts of the case
Follett was convicted of violating an ordinance of the town of McCormick, South Carolina which provided: '... the following license on business, occupation and professions to be paid by the person or persons carrying on or engaged in such business, occupation or professions within the corporate limits of the Town of McCormick, South Carolina: Agents selling books, per day $1.00, per year $15.00.' Appellant is a Jehovah's Witness and has been certified by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society as 'an ordained minister of Jehovah God to preach the gospel of God's kingdom under Christ Jesus.' He is a resident of McCormick, South Carolina, where he went from house to house distributing certain books. He obtained his living from the money received; he had no other source of income. He claimed that he merely offered the books for a 'contribution'. But there was evidence that he 'offered to and did sell the books'. Admittedly he had no license from the town and refused to obtain one.
At his trial, Follett moved for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence, claiming that the ordinance restricted freedom of worship in violation of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. The motion was overruled and appellant was found guilty by the jury in the Mayor's Court. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. 29 S.E.2d 539. The case is here on appeal. Judicial Code, 237( a), 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a).
[edit] Decision of the Court
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Minority opinions
In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy expressed reservations about the power to eax essentially religious activities.
[edit] Effects of the decision
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Critical response
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Subsequent history
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] References
- ^ 321 U.S. 573 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
