Jones v. City of Opelika (1942)
Encyclopedia
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 only covered individuals engaged in a commercial activity rather than a religious ritual.
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
.
wrote that individual rights must be balanced against competing rights of the state. He asserted that the fact that a person is engaged in disseminating religious materials does not place his action above regulation by the state. Reed wrote that, when people 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. The court held that Jones had no standing to challenge that part of the statute because he did not have a license revoked arbitrarily by the state.
, 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.
.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1942), 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 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.
Facts of the case
The city of Opelika, AlabamaOpelika, Alabama
Opelika is a city in and the county seat of Lee County in the east central part of the U.S. state of Alabama. It is a principal city of the Auburn-Opelika Metropolitan Area. According to 2010 Census, the population of Opelika was 26,477...
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
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism, convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual...
alleged that this violated his rights to both freedom of the press
Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials...
and freedom of religion
Freedom of religion
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any...
.
Majority decision
Writing for the majority, Justice ReedStanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed was a noted American attorney who served as United States Solicitor General from 1935 to 1938 and as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1938 to 1957. He was the last Supreme Court Justice who did not graduate from law school Stanley Forman Reed (December 31,...
wrote that individual rights must be balanced against competing rights of the state. He asserted that the fact that a person is engaged in disseminating religious materials does not place his action above regulation by the state. Reed wrote that, when people 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. The court held that Jones had no standing to challenge that part of the statute because he did not have a license revoked arbitrarily by the state.
Dissenting opinions
The two dissenting opinions, by Chief Justice Harlan Stone and Justice Frank MurphyFrank Murphy
William Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
, 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.
Effects of the decision
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.Subsequent history
In the one paragraph Jones v. City of Opelika (II) per curiam decision (319 US 103), the Court vacated Jones v. City of Opelika (1942) on the basis of the principles articulated in Murdock v. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaMurdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.- Facts of the case :The borough of...
.