WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK V. VILLAGE OF STRATTON
536 U.S. 150 (2002)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Watchtower (P) appealed the affirmation of the lower court's denial for injunctive relief against Village (D) in P's action for a violation of their First Amendment rights.
FACTS: P offers religious literature without cost to anyone interested in reading it. They allege that they do not solicit contributions or orders for the sale of merchandise or services, but they do accept donations. P sued D and its mayor seeking an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation on private property in D. The ordinance prohibits 'canvassers' and others from 'going in and upon' private residential property for the purpose of promoting any 'cause' without first having obtained a permit pursuant to 116.03.1 That section provides that any canvasser who intends to go on private property to promote a cause, must obtain a 'Solicitation Permit' from the office of the mayor; there is no charge for the permit, and apparently one is issued routinely after an applicant fills out a fairly detailed 'Solicitor's Registration Form.' The canvasser must carry the permit upon his person and exhibit it whenever requested to do so by a police officer or by a resident. The record does not show that any application has been denied or that any permit has been revoked. P did not apply for a permit. If the resident files a 'No Solicitation Registration Form' with the mayor, and also posts a 'No Solicitation' sign on his property, no uninvited canvassers may enter his property, unless they are specifically authorized to do so in the 'No Solicitation Registration Form' itself. P explained at trial that they did not apply for a permit because they derive their authority to preach from Scripture from God and 'For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God.' The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid, content-neutral regulations that did not infringe on petitioners' First Amendment rights. The court required D to accept narrowing constructions of three provisions. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The ordinance was 'content neutral and of general applicability and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny.' It rejected P's argument that the ordinance is overbroad because it impairs the right to distribute pamphlets anonymously as recognized in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment