Cantwell v. Connecticut Brief

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900 (1940)

Procedural History:

            Newton Cantwell and his two sons were arrested for violating a Connecticut statute and inciting a breach of the peace.  After trial in the Court of Common Pleas they were all convicted on the third count, which charged a violation of the General Statutes of Connecticut, and on the fifth count, which charged commission of the offense of inciting a breach of the peace.  They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut and that court convicted them.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari based on the substantial question under the Federal Constitution.

Facts:

            Newton Cantwell and his two sons were arrested for violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate from the secretary of the public welfare council before soliciting funds from the public and breach of the peace.  Newton and his sons were Jehovah’s witnesses and were trying to spread their religion in a heavily catholic neighborhood.  They were going door to door with books and pamphlets and a portable phonograph with sets of records.  One of the materials named Catholics as “enemies”.  Citizens in the neighborhood who heard the Cantwells were outraged and almost acted against the Cantwells aggressively.  The Cantwell’s were arrested for inciting a breach of the peace and violating a statute requiring registration of religious solicitors.

Issue: 

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

Holding: 

Yes.  This is because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rationale:

            The purpose of the Connecticut statue is to protect the public from fraud in the solicitation of money or other valuables under the guise of religion.  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 fact that an application must be sent in to the secretary of the public welfare council before asking for funds makes the Cantwell’s be in violation of the Connecticut Statute.  The Supreme Court states that this is in breach of the fourteenth amendment because it is up to an official to determine if a cause is a religious one or a charitable one.  Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth.

Decision: 

The lower courts ruling that Mr. Cantwell was in violation of the solicitation statute in the State of Connecticut and also that he violated the breach of the peace ordinance is reversed.