The borough of Jeanette, Pennsylvania had an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a
license from the borough. Murdock was a Jehovah’s Witness who asked for contributions
in exchange for books and pamphlets. The city claimed that this meant that they were
being sold and a license was required. At question was whether the licensing
requirement constituted a tax on Murdock’s religious exercise.
The Court in a 6-3 decision determined that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on
the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ right to freely exercise their religion.
|
Majority Opinion: (Justice Douglas) |
The petitioners used the distribution of pamphlets and brochures as a form of missionary
activity with an evangelical purpose. Not all behavior could be allowed by claiming
that it was a religious activity. “We only hold that spreading one's religious beliefs
or preaching the Gospel through distribution of religious literature and through
personal visitations is an age-old type of evangelism with as high a claim to
constitutional protection as the more orthodox types.” If the activity were done in
order to raise money, it would be commercial and could be taxed. However, in this case,
although donations were sought, the activity served a religious function. Religions are
not entirely free from facing financial burdens from the government. “It is one thing
to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to
exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon.” If the exercise can be
taxed then the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could only
be done by the wealthy. The state claimed that this argument was unimportant because the
tax was not expensive in practice. “It is a license tax-a flat tax imposed on the
exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge
for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” The fact that the
ordinance was imposed indiscriminately does not save it from being unconstitutional.
The neutral imposition of the tax on solicitation performed by a religious group did not
make it constitutionally acceptable. Also, the Court distinguished between commercial
activity and religious activity that involves the selling of religious literature.
Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
|
