CANTWELL vs.

CONNECTICUT

DOCTRINE: The State’s cannot put unreasonable restraints on a person’s free exercise
of religion, which includes the right to preach one’s views in a reasonable setting.

FACTS:
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly
Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. They were travelling door-to-door and
approaching people on the street. Two pedestrians reacted angrily to an anti-Catholic
message. Cantwell and his sons were arrested and charged with: (1) violation of a
Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before soliciting funds from
the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the convictions for failure to get a permit to solicit contributions, and for
inciting a breach of the peace, violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause

HELD:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held the Cantwells’ actions were protected by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that
while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious
grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes
were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest,
it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The
Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not threaten "bodily harm" and was
protected religious speech.

The statute that requires a permit to solicit money for religious, or other purposes, is
unconstitutional because it deprives the defendants of liberty without due process of law
under the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty in the Fourteenth
Amendment includes the guarantees in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment safeguards the freedom for someone to believe whatever he or she
wants, as well as the freedom to express or preach their religion to others. With regard
to the freedom to express or preach religion, a State can regulate the time, place, and
manner generally in the interest of public safety and convenience. However, it cannot put
a prior restraint on religious speech with a licensing requirement.

Further, Jesse’s conviction for breach of the peace must be set aside because Jesse’s
behavior was not so disruptive that it outweighed his freedom to express his religious
beliefs. When his religious recording offended onlookers, he walked away. Therefore,
the conviction merely punished his religious expression, which the Constitution cannot
allow.