Busey v. District of Columbia | |
---|---|
Argued June 1, 1943 Decided June 14, 1943 | |
Full case name | Busey, et al. v. District of Columbia |
Citations | 319 U.S. 579 ( more ) 63 S. Ct. 1277; 87 L. Ed. 1598; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 487 |
Case history | |
Prior | 129 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1942) |
Holding | |
District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Per curiam | |
Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for unlicensed selling of magazines on public sidewalks. [1]
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials".
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Supreme Court overruled this decision three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
Numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have been heard by Supreme Courts throughout the world. The cases revolve around three main subjects:
The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Jehovah's Witnesses believe their allegiance belongs to God's Kingdom, which they view as an actual government. They refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing nationalistic songs, which they believe are forms of worship, although they may stand out of respect. They also refuse to participate in military service—even when it is compulsory—and do not become involved in politics. They believe Jesus' refusal to rule the kingdoms of the world as offered by the Devil, his refusal to be made king of Israel by the Jews, and his statements that he, his followers, and his kingdom are not part of the world, provide the bases for not being involved in politics or government. Witnesses are taught that they should obey laws of the governments where they live unless such laws conflict with their beliefs, such as operating covertly in countries where their activities are banned.
Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, doctrines, and practices have engendered controversy and opposition from local governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian denominations consider the interpretations and doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses to be heretical, and some professors of religion have described the group as a cult.
Olin Richmond Moyle (1887–1966) was legal counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society from 1935 to 1939. He helped represent Jehovah's Witnesses in two cases before the United States Supreme Court, which set new precedents on First Amendment freedoms. A dispute with Watch Tower Society president J. F. Rutherford led to Moyle's expulsion from the religion. Moyle later sued the Watch Tower Society for libel over an article in its magazine, The Watchtower. In his later years, he became one of the leaders of the United Israel World Union, a movement that sought to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism.
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law prohibiting the distribution of handbills from door to door violated the First Amendment rights of a Jehovah's Witness, specifically their freedom of speech. The ruling was 5-4 and deemed trespassing laws a better fit for the town imposing the ordinance.
Hayden Cooper Covington was legal counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the mid-20th century. He argued numerous cases before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses in defense of their religious freedoms, winning most of them. In 1967, he defended then world heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali in his legal battle against the draft during the Vietnam War.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring door-to-door salespersons ("solicitors") to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.
Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942), 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 covered not a religious ritual but only individuals who engaged in a commercial activity.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Here, the Court held that government may require organizers of any parade or procession on public streets to have a license and pay a fee.
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses Cases", because the Supreme Court handed down rulings on these four cases related to the Jehovah's Witnesses on the same day. Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, it ruled in favor of them in the other three cases and those represent landmark decisions in the area of First Amendment constitutional law.
Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, doctrines, policies and practices have engendered controversy and opposition from governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian denominations consider their doctrines to be heretical, and some religious leaders have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult. Members of the denomination have also met with objection from governments for refusing to serve in the military, particularly in times of war. Many individuals consider their door-to-door preaching to be intrusive. These issues have led to persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in various countries, including the United States.
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
Jamison v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Dallas city ordinance, which prohibited distribution of handbills on the streets, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the material being distributed is religious in its nature.
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute making it an offense to distribute literature in a federal government-owned town was an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943), was a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a city ordinance of Paris, Texas requiring permits in order to solicit orders for books is unconstitutional as applied to the distribution of religious publications. The church members were represented by Hayden C. Covington.
Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943), was a case involving three Jehovah's Witnesses in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal sanction cannot be imposed for communication that has not been shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government.
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This Jehovah's Witnesses-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |