The New York Times The New York Times National June 18, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
- Columns
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions

Click Here
Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Text Version

Join Ameritrade. Get a $50 cash bonus.


Find More Low Fares! Experience Orbitz!


$7 Trades, 160 Offices, No Inactivity Fees


Go to Advanced Search/ArchiveGo to Advanced Search/ArchiveSymbol Lookup
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, paulryder1
ADVERTISEMENT

Court Strikes Down Curb on Visits by Jehovah's Witnesses

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, June 17 ó People have the right to go door to door to advocate for religious, political or other noncommercial causes without first getting the government's permission, the Supreme Court ruled today in a lopsided constitutional victory for the ministry of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The 8-to-1 decision struck down a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance that made it a crime for any canvasser or solicitor to pay an uninvited visit on any of the 278 residents for the purpose of promoting or explaining any cause without providing identification and obtaining a permit from the mayor's office. The village interpreted "canvassers" to include Jehovah's Witnesses, with whom the mayor, John M. Abdalla, had long had a tense relationship, and "cause" to include their door-to-door ministry.

Advertisement

A floor lamp that spreads sunshine all over a room...

The easiest LCD touchscreen remote available today!

Fish finding technology thatís banned from pro tournaments

Scientists adapt NASA technology to create "smart bed" sleep surface

Private digital theater puts a floating screen right before your eyes!

Photos, music, documents, etc... Copy them all...

If you donít back up your hard drive immediately...donít blame us!






While drawing on a series of Supreme Court precedents that found constitutional protection for the nonconformist views of the Jehovah's Witnesses ó who refuse to salute the American flag, for example ó the decision today was not limited to religious expression. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the ordinance appeared to apply to neighbors ringing one another's doorbells to solicit support for political candidates or improved public services.

"It is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society," Justice Stevens said, "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."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was the lone dissenter. He cited a series of recent crimes, including the murder of a Dartmouth University faculty couple by two teenagers who gained entry to the couple's home by claiming to be conducting a survey, in arguing that the Stratton ordinance was a valid approach to crime control.

"The Constitution does not require that Stratton first endure its own crime wave before it takes measures to prevent crime," Justice Rehnquist said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the "crime prevention justification" the chief justice invoked in support of the ordinance was "not a strong one" because the village itself had not relied on it. Stratton argued that the ordinance, adopted in 1998, was justified by the need to protect residents' privacy and deter fraud, mentioning crime only in passing.

"I can only conclude that if the village of Stratton thought preventing burglaries and violent crimes was an important justification for this ordinance, it would have said so," Justice Breyer said.

Although the scale of the case was small, involving a village on the Ohio River and a 59-member Jehovah's Witnesses congregation from a nearby town, its themes and implications were large, reflected in briefs filed by national organizations.

For some, the important theme was not so much the actual restraint on speech as the value the court placed on anonymous speech. Two recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the right of political canvassers and pamphleteers to remain anonymous have alarmed supporters of campaign finance disclosure requirements.

The decision today, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, No. 00-1737, found the identification requirement of the Stratton ordinance to be one of its constitutional flaws. At the same time, Justice Stevens suggested, although rather obliquely, that the earlier decisions were limited in their application and did not stand for a broad principle that no disclosure can be required in the campaign finance context.

Many cities and towns have ordinances regulating commercial solicitation, and those were not affected by the ruling today. Justice Stevens suggested that the Stratton ordinance might well have been constitutional had the village applied it "only to commercial activities and the solicitation of funds."

A brief from the Mormon Church told the court that restrictions on religious proselytizing were increasingly common. The brief asked the court to rule that religious expression had a "preferred status" under the First Amendment.

But the court's treatment of the ordinance as a broad restriction on advocacy made it unnecessary for the justices to reopen their debate over whether religious activities should be exempt from generally applicable regulations.

Jehovah's Witnesses who regularly visited Stratton refused to seek a permit on the ground that their authority to preach derived from the Bible and not the government. Along with the denomination's Brooklyn-based national organization, they challenged the ordinance and lost, both in Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.

In his majority opinion, Justice Stevens noted that Supreme Court decisions in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses going back to the 1930's and 1940's have echoed First Amendment principles. "The value judgment that then motivated a united democratic people fighting to defend those very freedoms from totalitarian attack is unchanged," he said. "It motivates our decision today."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas did not sign the majority opinion, instead concurring separately in an opinion by Justice Scalia that was oddly churlish in tone.

Justice Scalia responded to a comment by Justice Stevens that there were "patriotic citizens" who might "prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official." That was a "fairy-tale category" of patriots, Justice Scalia said, adding: "If our free-speech jurisprudence is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed."

Linda Greenhouse answers readers' questions on Supreme Court rules and procedure in a column available only on NYTimes.com. E-mail Ms. Greenhouse a question at mailto:scotuswb@nytimes.com\. Please include your name, address and daytime telephone number; upon request names may be withheld.




Forum: Join a Discussion on Supreme Court Issues




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Start the day informed with home delivery of The New York Times newspaper.
Click Here for 50% off.


Home | Back to National | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Roundup: Police May Search Bus Riders, Minus the Speech (June 18, 2002)




Topics

 Alerts
Supreme Court (US)
Suits and Litigation
Church-State Relations
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters









You can solve today's New York Times crossword puzzle online. Click here to learn more.