Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals (Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington), Young v. People of the State of California, Snyder v. City of Milwaukee, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts), each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The Court held that the purpose of the ordinances (to keep the streets clean and of good appearance) was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it.
The appellants (Jehovah's Witnesses) were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door-to-door.
Ray L. Chesebro, Frederick Von Schrader, Leon T. David, John L. Bland, and Bourke Jones submitted for appellee in No. 13.
A.W. Richter, with whom Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 18.
Carl F. Zeidler argued the cause, and Mr. Walter J. Mattison was on the brief, for respondent in No. 18.
Sidney S. Grant and Osmond K. Fraenkel for appellants in No. 29.
Edward O. Proctor, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, with whom Mr. Paul A. Dever, Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellee in No. 29.
Decisionedit
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the purpose of the ordinances to keep the streets clean and of good appearance was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution resulted from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press. Concerning the distribution of materials from house to house without a permit, the ordinance was void.
This right is not absolute, however. Municipalities may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets, for the purpose of keeping them open and available for movement of people and property, so long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature.
Works related to Schneider v. New Jersey at Wikisource
Text of Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaOpenJuristOyez (oral argument audio)
schneider, jersey, schneider, state, jersey, 1939, united, states, supreme, court, decision, that, combined, four, similar, appeals, schneider, state, jersey, town, irvington, young, people, state, california, snyder, city, milwaukee, nichols, commonwealth, ma. Schneider v State of New Jersey 308 U S 147 1939 was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals Schneider v State of New Jersey Town of Irvington Young v People of the State of California Snyder v City of Milwaukee Nichols et al v Commonwealth of Massachusetts each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Schneider v State of New JerseySupreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 13 16 1939Decided November 22 1939Full case nameSchneider v State of New Jersey Town of Irvington Citations308 U S 147 more 60 S Ct 146 84 L Ed 155 1939 U S LEXIS 1115 2 Lab Cas CCH 17 049 5 L R R M 659Case historyPriorCertiorari to the New Jersey Court of Errors and AppealsHoldingThe Court held that the purpose of the ordinances to keep the streets clean and of good appearance was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it Court membershipChief Justice Charles E Hughes Associate Justices James C McReynolds Harlan F StoneOwen Roberts Hugo BlackStanley F Reed Felix FrankfurterWilliam O DouglasCase opinionsMajorityRoberts joined by Hughes Butler Stone Black Reed Frankfurter DouglasDissentMcReynoldsLaws appliedU S Const amend I U S Const amend XIV The appellants Jehovah s Witnesses were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door to door Contents 1 Representation 2 Decision 3 See also 4 External linksRepresentation editJoseph F Rutherford with whom Mr Hayden C Covington was on the brief for petitioner in No 11 Robert I Morris argued the cause and Messrs Meyer Q Kessel and Joseph C Braelow were on the brief for respondent in No 11 Osmond K Fraenkel with whom Carol King and Mr A L Wirin were on the brief for appellant in No 13 Ray L Chesebro Frederick Von Schrader Leon T David John L Bland and Bourke Jones submitted for appellee in No 13 A W Richter with whom Mr Osmond K Fraenkel was on the brief for petitioner in No 18 Carl F Zeidler argued the cause and Mr Walter J Mattison was on the brief for respondent in No 18 Sidney S Grant and Osmond K Fraenkel for appellants in No 29 Edward O Proctor Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts with whom Mr Paul A Dever Attorney General was on the brief for appellee in No 29 Decision editIn 1939 the U S Supreme Court held that the purpose of the ordinances to keep the streets clean and of good appearance was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution resulted from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press Concerning the distribution of materials from house to house without a permit the ordinance was void This right is not absolute however Municipalities may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets for the purpose of keeping them open and available for movement of people and property so long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 308 Lovell v City of GriffinExternal links edit nbsp Works related to Schneider v New Jersey at Wikisource Text of Schneider v State of New Jersey 308 U S 147 1939 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This Jehovah s Witnesses related article is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Schneider v New Jersey amp oldid 1175149550, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
