Tucker v. Texas
Tucker v. Texas | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | State of Texas v. Tucker, Justice Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported); Tucker v. State of Texas, County Court of Medina County, Texas (not reported) |
Holding | |
Held that a statute used to punish an individual for refusing to refrain from religious activity is an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Black, joined by Douglas, Frankfurter, Murphy, Rutledge |
Concurrence | Frankfurter |
Dissent | Stone, Reed, Burton |
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, ยง1; Tex. Pen. Code, Chap. 3, Art. 479 (1945) |
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute making it an offense to distribute literature in a federal government-owned town was an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.[1]
Background
History
Tucker was an
The Federal Public Housing Authority had placed the buildings in charge of a manager whose duty it was to rent the houses, collect the rents, and generally to supervise operations, subject to over-all control by the Authority. He ordered Tucker to discontinue all religious activities in the village. Tucker refused. Later the manager ordered Tucker to leave the village. Insisting that the manager had no right to suppress religious activities, appellant declined to leave, and his arrest followed. At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion. He thought this broad authority was entrusted to him, at least in part, by a regulation, which the Authority's Washington office had allegedly promulgated. He testified that this regulation provided that no peddlers or hawkers could come into or remain in the village without getting permission from the manager.[1]
Lower courts
Tucker was charged in the
Direct appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
At the time, Texas law did not provide for a subsequent appeal to a higher state court. Under 28 U.S.C. 344(a) (now at
Opinion of the Court
Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court. Black referred to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)[2] which was decided during the same term. In that case, the court had held that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious literature by requiring a permit in a company town. Black noted that the only difference here was that the Marsh case involved a privately owned town and the current case involved a town owned by the federal government. Black allowed that there might be a case where it might be proper for security reasons to prohibit outsiders from entering such a housing area, but that did not apply in this case. The case was reversed and remanded.[1]
Concurrence
Justice Felix Frankfurter issued a concurring opinion. Frankfurter noted that since the town was owned by the government rather than a private company, the government was held a higher requirement not to infringe on basic freedoms than a company. He also noted that this did not involve an act of Congress.[1]
Dissent
Chief Justice
Subsequent developments
This case was one of a series of cases known as the
See also
- Marsh v. Alabama
- United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 326
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946).
- ^ a b Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
- ^ a b McAninch, William Shepard (1987), "A Catalyst for the Evolution of Constitutional Law: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55 U. Cin. L. Rev. 997
- ^ Flynn, Patrick J. (2004), "'Writing their Faith into the Laws of the Land:' Jehovah's Witnesses and the Supreme Court's Battle for the Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, 1939-1945", Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 1 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 1
- S2CID 154683496.
External links
- Text of Tucker v. Texas'', 326 U.S. 517 (1946) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist