Jones v. City of Opelika (I)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jones v. City of Opelika

Decided June 8, 1942

Full case name:

Citations:	316 U.S. 584

Holding

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

Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942),^[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute prohibiting the sale of books without a license was constitutional because it only covered individuals engaged in a commercial activity rather than a religious ritual.

1 Facts of the case
2 Decision of the Court
- 2.1 Majority decision
- 2.2 Dissenting opinions
3 Effects of the decision
4 Significance and critical response
5 Subsequent history
6 References
7 See also
8 External links

[edit] Facts of the case

The city of Opelika, Alabama charged Jones with violating a statute by selling books without a license. All licenses were subject to immediate revocation by the city without requiring advance notice. Jones, a Jehovah's Witness alleged that this violated his rights to both freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

[edit] Decision of the Court

[edit] Majority decision

Justice Reed wrote for the majority.

Individual rights must be balanced against competing rights of the state. The fact that a person is engaged in disseminating religious materials does not place his action above regulation by the state. When, as in these cases, the practitioners of these noble callings choose to utilize the vending of their religious books and tracts as a source of funds, the financial aspects of their transactions need not be wholly disregarded. To subject any religious or didactic group to a reasonable fee for their money-making activities does not require a finding that the licensed acts are purely commercial. It is enough that money is earned by the sale of articles. When traditional means of distribution are used by religious groups, they can be held to the same standards as non-religious groups. Because Jones did not have a license revoked arbitrarily by the state he has no standing to challenge that part of the statute.

[edit] Dissenting opinions

The two dissenting opinions, by Chief Justice Harlan Stone and Justice Frank Murphy, examined both the unlimited discretion of the authorities in Opelika to withdraw a license as well as the amount of fees charged in order to get a license. The majority had considered the amount of fees ($25.00 annually in some cases or $2.50 per day in others) irrelevant because the issue had not been argued below, but the dissenters thought this amount was relevant.

[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] Significance and critical response

This decision forced religious groups to meet the same requirements as non-religious groups engaged in a similar activity. The fact that they were selling religious materials did not exempt them from statutes regulating commercial acts.