Martin v. Struthers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Martin v. Struthers | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued Mar. 11, 1943 Decided May 3, 1943 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Hugo Black Joined by: William O. Douglas, Wiley Blount Rutledge Dissent by: Stanley Forman Reed Joined by: Owen Josephus Roberts, Robert H. Jackson |
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a law prohibiting the distribution of handbills door-to-door violated the First Amendment rights of a Jehovah's Witness.
Contents |
[edit] Facts of the case
"Martin...went to the homes of strangers, knocking on doors and ringing doorbells in order to distribute to the inmates of the homes leaflets advertising a religious meeting. In doing so, she proceeded in a conventional and orderly fashion."
She was convicted "in the Mayor's Court" and fined $10.00 for violating a city ordinance which made it illegal to distribute door-to-door any "handbills, circulars or other advertisements."
[edit] Prior history
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Decision of the Court
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion of the court saying, "While door to door distributors of literature may be either a nuisance or a blind for criminal activities, they may also be useful members of society engaged in the dissemination of ideas in accordance with the best tradition of free discussion."
"The ordinance does not control anything but the distribution of literature, and in that respect it substitutes the judgment of the community for the judgment of the individual householder. It submits the distributor to criminal punishment for annoying the person on whom he calls, even though the recipient of the literature distributed is in fact glad to receive it.
In any case the problem must be worked out by each community for itself with due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it, as well as those who choose to exclude such distributors from the home.
The Struthers ordinance does not safeguard these constitutional rights. (...) We conclude that the ordinance is invalid because [it is] in conflict with the freedom of speech and press. "
[edit] Dissenting opinions
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[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
- ^ 319 U.S. 141 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
