Jones v. City of Opelika

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Jones v. City of Opelika" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Jones v. City of Opelika
U.S. LEXIS 447
Court membership
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone Associate Justices Owen Roberts · Hugo Black Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy James F. Byrnes · Robert H. Jackson
Case opinions
Majority	Reed, joined by Roberts, Frankfurter, Byrnes, Jackson
Dissent	Stone, joined by Murphy, Black, Douglas
Dissent	Murphy, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas
Dissent	Black, Douglas, Murphy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute prohibiting the sale of books without a license was constitutional because it covered not a religious ritual but only individuals who engaged in a commercial activity.^[1]

Background

The city of

Writing for the majority, Justice Reed wrote that individual rights must be balanced against competing rights of the state. He asserted that the fact that a person is engaged in disseminating religious materials does not place his action above regulation by the state. When people choose to use the vending of their religious books and tracts as a source of funds, the financial aspects of their transactions need not be wholly disregarded. To subject any religious or didactic group to a reasonable fee for their money-making activities does not require a finding that the licensed acts are purely commercial. It is enough that money is earned by the sale of articles.

When traditional means of distribution are used by religious groups, they can be held to the same standards as non-religious groups. The court held that Jones had no standing to challenge that part of the statute because he did not have a license that was revoked arbitrarily by the state.

Dissenting opinions

The two principal dissenting opinions, by Chief Justice

, examined both the unlimited discretion of the authorities in Opelika to withdraw a license as well as the amount of fees charged in order to get a license. The majority had considered that the amount of fees ($25.00 annually in some cases or $2.50 per day in others) was irrelevant because the issue had not been argued earlier, but the dissenters thought the amount to be relevant.

Justices

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette

.

Effects

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)

The decision forced religious groups to meet the same requirements as nonreligious groups engaged in a similar activity. The fact that they were selling religious materials did not exempt them from statutes regulating commercial acts.

Subsequent history

In the one paragraph per curiam decision Jones v. City of Opelika (II), 319 U.S. 103 (1943),

Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

; a state may not prohibit distribution of religious handbills where handbills seek to raise funds in a lawful fashion.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 316

References

External links

• Works related to Jones v. City of Opelika (316 U.S. 584) at Wikisource
• Text of Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  OpenJurist