Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) is a landmark Supreme Court case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and a local ordinance that required them to purchase a license to sell religious materials door-to-door.
The central question in Murdock v Penn was whether this municipal ordinance, which essentially taxed their religious activities, was constitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it was not.
What happened in Murdock v. Pennsylvania?
Here’s a quick rundown of the facts in the case:
- The city of Jeannette, Pennsylvania, had an ordinance requiring anyone soliciting sales to obtain a license, for a fee. This rule applied to everyone, not just religious groups.
- Robert Murdock and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested for going door to door selling religious materials without a license. They were fined for violating the ordinance.
- The Witnesses argued that the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of speech and religion.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court decided that the town ordinance requiring a license to solicit door-to-door was unconstitutional when applied to religious groups. The justices felt the license tax was a form of censorship that infringed on religious freedom.
Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, said the tax was akin to censorship. He argued that taxing the free exercise of religion was the same as suppressing it.
There were dissenting opinions as well, but the majority ruled in favor of Murdock.
Frequently Asked Questions
When no state shall convert a liberty into a license
This principle, central to cases like Murdock v. Pennsylvania, asserts that states can’t impose taxes or fees that effectively restrict freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. A “liberty” is a fundamental right, while a “license” implies government permission for an activity, often involving a fee. States can’t turn constitutionally protected activities into paid privileges.
What is the argument for the right to travel?
The “right to travel” argument, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is a fundamental right inferred from various provisions. It asserts the freedom to move between states without undue burden or discrimination. Restrictions on this right are subject to strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means.
Who was the plaintiff in Prigg v. Pennsylvania?
The plaintiff was Edward Prigg, a slave catcher. He was prosecuted by the state of Pennsylvania for kidnapping a woman named Margaret Morgan and her children, who had escaped slavery in Maryland and were residing in Pennsylvania. Prigg acted under the authority of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
What was the issue and ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania?
The central issue was the conflict between Pennsylvania’s anti-kidnapping laws and the federal Fugitive Slave Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional and that federal law superseded state laws that conflicted with it. However, the Court also held that states were not required to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves.
The Bottom Line
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a landmark case that protects religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that the government can’t tax or license religious activities in a way that would keep people from practicing their faith.
The case highlights how laws that seem fair on the surface can sometimes violate constitutional rights, and it shows the Supreme Court’s critical role in safeguarding those rights.
The Murdock ruling continues to be relevant today in conversations about the separation of church and state and the limits of government power.