Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

 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 (May 3, 1943). 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

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...

 constitutional law

Constitutional law

Constitutional law is the body of law which defines the relationship of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary....

.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff in this matter was Robert L. Douglas, a Jehovah's Witness who filed suit against the municipality of Jeannette, Pennsylvania

Jeannette, Pennsylvania

Jeannette is a city in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, United States. The population was 10,788 at the 2000 census.-Geography:Jeannette is located at ....

in 1939. Douglas sought to enjoin against the enforcement of ordinances that prohibited him and other colleagues from distributing religious materials door-to-door.

Decision of the Court

Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court denying equity relief on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that it was necessary to presume good faith by the municipality in reassessing the enforcement of statutes that had been declared unconstitutional. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, appended to the majority opinion, also touched on the First Amendment issues raised in the case.