Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued February 26, 2002 Decided June 17, 2002 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Stevens Joined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer Concurrence by: Breyer Joined by: Souter, Ginsberg Concurrence by: Scalia Joined by: Thomas Dissent by: Rehnquist |
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violate the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[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] Facts of the case
In 1998 the village of Stratton, Ohio passed a solicitation registration ordinance requiring licensing of "canvassers, solicitors, peddlers, [or] hawkers" who approach private residences for the "purposes of advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization, or cause."[2] The ordinance imposed criminal sanctions on canvassing or soliciting without a license.
The registration procedure, revised once after objections from the Jehovah's Witnesses, required the applicant to provide detailed information that is then posted in a public record: the applicant's name, home address, the organization or cause to be promoted, the name and address of the employer or affiliated organization (with credentials from the employer or organization showing the individual's exact relationship), the length of time that "the privilege to canvass or solicit is desired," the addresses to be contacted, and "such other information concerning the Registrant and its business or purpose as may be reasonably necessary to accurately describe the nature of the privilege required."
Stratton's anti-solicitation ordinance not only required registration of those who seek the "privilege" of going door-to-door, but also requires the would-be solicitor to carry with them a permit, which they are required to show upon demand to the police or a resident.
Under the ordinance, residents of Stratton had the right to opt out of all or some solicitations through two means. First, they can post a "no solicitation" or "no trespassing" sign on their property. Residents could also fill out a "no solicitation" registration form at the office of the mayor. As part of the registration form, residents can indicate permission for solicitations from any or all of a series of listed groups: Scouting organizations, trick-or-treaters, food vendors, Christmas carolers, political candidates, campaigners, Jehovah's Witnesses, "Persons affiliated with __ Church," and other groups.
The Jehovah's Witnesses pointed to the fact that they were the only religious organization singled out on this form, as well as to discriminatory statements made by Stratton's mayor, as indications of an anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias underlying the law. The village of Stratton, on the other hand, claimed that the ordinance was motivated out of a desire to protect Stratton's elderly citizens from potential frauds and scams.
[edit] Amicus Briefs
Amicus Briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Village of Stratton case:
- Independent Baptist Churches of America
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
- Center for Individual Freedom
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al.
[edit] Decision of the Court
On June 17, 2002, the Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that the Village of Stratton's ordinance violated the First Amendment. The Court stated that "it is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."
[edit] Effects of the decision
After the case was over, it changed the way Jehovah Witnesses preached in The Village of Stratton's, and many other places where the ordinances require acts such as these. This also served as a role model for other communities to follow, because although it may not be a written law, (constitutional, administrative, or statutory law) it can be thought of as a common law.
[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
- ^ 536 U.S. 150 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ Village of Stratton ordinance 1998-5.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
Watchtower.org
