Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania was a pivotal Supreme Court case in the late 1940s that addressed the intersection of religious freedom and local taxation. The plaintiffs, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, contended that a local ordinance imposing a tax on their door-to-door pamphleteering infringed upon their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. They argued that their activities were not commercial solicitation but rather an expression of religious beliefs, which included seeking donations for their cause. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court sided with the plaintiffs, emphasizing that First Amendment rights, particularly the free exercise of religion, should enjoy a "preferred position" and should not be burdened by financial conditions.
This case marked a significant shift in the Supreme Court's approach to individual rights, particularly in terms of religious expression. The ruling underscored the principle that government regulations must not impose undue restrictions on the practice of religion. Murdock v. Pennsylvania laid the groundwork for the "preferred freedoms doctrine," which has influenced subsequent cases and continues to shape discussions around constitutional rights in America. The decision reflects an ongoing dialogue about the balance between governmental authority and individual freedoms, illustrating the complexities of First Amendment jurisprudence.
On this Page
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
The Case U.S. Supreme Court decision formalizing the preferred freedoms doctrine
Date Decided on May 3, 1943
The Supreme Court’s narrow ruling in this case established the concept that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, press, and speech occupied a preferred position in U.S. constitutional law.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania was one of several cases involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court during the late 1930’s and 1940’s. In this case, plaintiffs from the religious sect argued that their constitutional right to free exercise of religion was being denied by a local tax on their door-to-door pamphleteering. They were being charged a flat tax, despite the fact that their pamphleteering included requests for donations and was therefore classified as soliciting, not selling, under local ordinances.
The Court agreed with the plaintiffs, striking down the ordinance as applied to their activities in a 5-4 decision. Justice William O. Douglas stated in his majority opinion that because First Amendment rights such as the free exercise of religion are foundational to other constitutional rights, they must be placed in a “preferred position.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ pamphleteering in this case, he said, was a predominantly religious activity, not a commercial one, and government must not place a financial “condition” on the exercise of this First Amendment right.
Only one year earlier, the Court had denied a similar constitutional challenge to another government ordinance by a 5-4 vote; a change in Court personnel allowed for a reversal in the Court’s Murdock ruling. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed fellow liberal Wiley B. Rutledge to fill the seat of the retiring James F. Byrnes, a new majority had been born.
Impact
Murdock signaled the Supreme Court’s transition toward becoming a champion of individual rights. Since this ruling, the preferred freedoms doctrine has been used to protect many forms of expression and has remained part of the complex and sometimes contradictory realm of constitutional jurisprudence.
Bibliography
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.
Butler, Jon, Grant Wacker, and Randall Balmer. Religion in American Life: A Short History. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Lewis, Thomas Tandy, ed. U.S. Court Cases. Rev. ed. 3 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press, 2011.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗.U.S. Supreme Court. 3 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press, 2007.