World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Cantwell v. Connecticut

Article Id: WHEBN0005100430
Reproduction Date:

Title: Cantwell v. Connecticut  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union, Abington School District v. Schempp, Everson v. Board of Education, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Establishment Clause
Collection: 1940 in Connecticut, 1940 in United States Case Law, American Civil Liberties Union Litigation, Christianity and Law in the 20Th Century, History of New Haven, Connecticut, Incorporation Case Law, Jehovah's Witnesses Litigation in the United States, Legal History of Connecticut, United States Free Exercise of Religion Case Law, United States Free Speech Clause Case Law, United States Supreme Court Cases, United States Supreme Court Cases of the Hughes Court
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Cantwell v. Connecticut

Cantwell v. Connecticut
Argued March 29, 1940
Decided May 20, 1940
Full case name Cantwell et al. v. State of Connecticut
Citations 310 U.S. 296 (more)
60 S. Ct. 900; 84 L. Ed. 1213; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 591; 128 A.L.R. 1352
Prior history 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533; Appeal from and certiorari from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Subsequent history None
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const., amends. I and XIV

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated or applied to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise.


  • Background 1
    • Prior history 1.1
  • Issue 2
  • Opinion of the Court 3
  • Significance 4
  • See also 5
  • Further reading 6
  • External links 7


A Connecticut statute required licenses for those soliciting for religious or charitable purposes. The statute was an early type of consumer protection law: it required the Secretary, before issuing a certificate permitting solicitation, to determine whether the cause was "a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy" and whether the solicitation "conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity."

Upon determination of the cause's legitimacy, a solicitation certificate would be issued.

Jesse Cantwell (a Jehovah's Witness) and his two sons, Newton and Russel, were proselytizing in a heavily Roman Catholic neighborhood in New Haven, Connecticut. The Cantwells were going door to door, with books and pamphlets and a portable phonograph with sets of records. Each record contained a description of one of the books. One such book was "Enemies", which was an attack on organized religion in general and especially the Roman Catholic Church. Jesse Cantwell stopped two men on the street and requested permission to play a phonograph. They gave permission, and after hearing the recording, the two citizens were incensed; though they wanted to physically assault the Cantwells, they restrained themselves.

Cantwell and his two sons were arrested and charged with: (1) violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate from the secretary of the public welfare council ("Secretary") before soliciting funds from the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.

The Cantwells stated they did not get a license because they did not believe the government had the right to determine whether the Witnesses were a religion. They argued that the statute denied the trio their due process rights under the 14th Amendment, and it also denied them their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religious expression.

Prior history

The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with the Cantwells, finding that the statute was an effort by the state of Connecticut to protect the public against fraud, and as such, the statute was constitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three on the statutory charge and affirmed one son's conviction of inciting a breach of the peace, but remanded the inciting a breach of peace charge against the other two for a new trial.


The issue presented before the court was whether the state's action in convicting the Cantwells with inciting a breach of the peace and violating the solicitation statute violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Opinion of the Court

The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Justice Owen Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion that "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

In general the court hold with respect to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and their embodiment in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional


Before the Cantwell decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. But the Supreme Court in Cantwell said it did, thereby ushering in an era of greatly strengthened religious freedom.

This case incorporated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, thereby applying it to the states and protecting free exercise of religion from intrusive state action. The Establishment Clause was incorporated seven years later in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

See also

Further reading

External links

  • ^ 310 U.S. 296 (Text of the opinion on
  • "Religion: Freedom of Faith", Time magazine, April 8, 1940, contemporaneous article on the case, Online
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.