Schneider v. New Jersey

Schneider v. State of New Jersey
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 16, 1939 Decided November 22, 1939
Full case name	Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington)
Citations	308 U.S. 147 (more) 60 S. Ct. 146;84 L. Ed. 155;1939 U.S. LEXIS 1115;2 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P17,049;5 L.R.R.M. 659
Prior history	Certiorari to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices James C. McReynolds · Pierce Butler Harlan F. Stone · Owen J. Roberts Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Hughes, Butler, Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
Dissent	McReynolds
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I, U.S. Const. amend. XIV

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 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.

Decision

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.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 308