Poulos v. New Hampshire (345 U.S. 395)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 27, 1953 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 345 U.S. 395 · 73 S. Ct. 760
- Docket
- No. 341
- Argued
- February 3, 1953
- Decided
- April 27, 1953
- Term
- October Term 1952
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Reed
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Reed (wrote)
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Frankfurter (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Black (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal presents the validity of a conviction of appellant for conducting religious services in a public park of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, without a required license, when proper application for the license had been arbitrarily and unreasonably refused by the City Council. The conclusion depends upon consideration of the principles of the First Amendment secured against state abridgment by the Fourteenth. Appellant is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Permission for appellant and another Witness, now deceased, was sought to conduct services in Goodwin Park on June 25 and July 2. They offered to pay all proper fees and charges, and complied with the procedural requirements for obtaining permission to use the park. When the license was refused on May 4, appellant nevertheless held the planned services and continued them until arrested. He was charged with violation of § 22 of the city ordinance set out below. On conviction in the Municipal Court he was fined $20 and took an appeal which entitled him to a plenary trial before the Superior Court. Before that trial appellant moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that “the ordinance as applied was unconstitutional and void.” This motion on the constitutional question, pursuant to New Hampshire practice, was transferred to the Supreme Court. It ruled, as it had on a former…
Excerpt of a 59,750-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.