Cantwell v. Connecticut
- Decided
- May 20, 1940
- Docket
- 632
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,669 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the" “fundamental concept of liberty embodied in [the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause] embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment” — Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (2004)
- holding that the intangible harms caused by playing religious records to the public is insufficient to impose civil or criminal liability — Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert (2008)
- holding that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment — St. Augustine School v. Carolyn Stanford Taylor (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*300] Me. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, members of a group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and claiming to be ordained ministers, were arrested in New Haven, Connecticut, and each was charged by information in five counts, with statutory and common law offenses. After trial in the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County each of them was convicted on the third count, which charged a violation of § 6294 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, [1] and on the fifth count, which charged commission of the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace. On appeal to the Supreme Court the conviction of all three on the third count was affirmed. The conviction of Jesse Cantwell, on the fifth count, was also affirmed, but the conviction of Newton and Russell on that count was reversed and a new trial ordered as to them. [2]
By demurrers to the information, by requests for rulings of law at the trial, and by their assignments of error in the State Supreme Court, the appellants pressed the contention that the statute under which the third count was drawn was offensive to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because, on .its face and as construed and applied, it denied them freedom of speech and prohibited their free exercise of religion. In like manner [*301] they made the point that they could not be found guilty on the fifth count, without violation of the Amendment.
Cite this
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.