Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Image: UMKC School of Law
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) is the 77th landmark Supreme Court cases, the second in the Religion module, featured in the KTB Prep American Government and Civics eries designed to acquaint users with the origins, concepts, organizations, and policies of the United States government and political system. The goal is greater familiarization with the rights and obligations of citizenship at the local, state, national, and global levels and the history of our nation as a democracy. While there is overlap, these landmark cases are separated into cases addressing:
- Courts
- Foreign Policy
- Family
- Science & Technology
- Environment
- Public Safety
- Religion
- Death Penalty
- Healthcare
- Speech, Press, and Protest
- Elections
- Economics
- Criminal Justice
- Education
- Politics, Society, Freedom, and Equality
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it has been left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.
The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. Since the formation of the Court in 1790, there have been only 17 Chief Justices* and 102 Associate Justices, with Justices serving for an average of 16 years. On average a new Justice joins the Court almost every two years.
The Supreme Court of the United States hears about 100 to 150 appeals of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review every year. That means the decisions made by the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals across the country and the Federal Circuit Court are the last word in thousands of cases.
Court of Appeals
In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.
The appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence. They do not hear witnesses testify. There is no jury. Appellate courts review the procedures and the decisions in the trial court to make sure that the proceedings were fair and that the proper law was applied correctly.
A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
District Courts
The nation’s 94 trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. At a trial in a U.S. District Court, witnesses give testimony and a judge or jury decides who is guilty or not guilty — or who is liable or not liable. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.
Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.
There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court.
Bankruptcy Courts
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy. This means a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are 3-judge panels authorized to hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. These panels are a unit of the federal courts of appeals, and must be established by that circuit. Five circuits have established panels: First Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Cantwell Facts:
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.
Newton Cantwell (a Jehovah’s Witness) and his two sons, were preaching 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 sons were arrested and charged with:
- violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before soliciting funds from the public
- inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three; 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.
Cantwell Legal Questions and Answers
Q: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?
A: Yes. The local ordinance requiring a permit to solicit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Cantwell Conclusion
Unanimous decision holding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.
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.
Next Religion Case: Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989)
Previous Religion Case: Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Next Case: Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
Previous Case: Hague v. CIO (1939)
