MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE)
Supreme Court Cases
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Related Cases
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS v. REAGAN NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF AUSTIN, LLC, ET AL.
Decided:
"[W]hether, under this Court’s precedents interpreting the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the City’s regulation is subject to strict scrutiny."
IANCU v. BRUNETTI
Decided:
MATAL v. TAM
Decided:
HOLT v. HOBBS
Decided:
Did the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy substantially burden the prisoner's free exercise of religion?
BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES
Decided:
SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL
Decided:
Do Vermonts mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)?
MIKE JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al., v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al.
Decided:
Did the 8th Circuit err in holding that the 1985 Beef Promotion & Research Act, and regulations promulgated there under which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under direct supervision of Secretary of Agriculture are unconstitutional and unenforceable?
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which requires canvassers to obtain a permit and reveal identifying information before going door-to-door to spread their political or religious messages violates the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v. UNITED FOODS, INC.
Decided:
Does a compelled generic advertising program for mushroom producers violate the commercial speech rights of a mushroom producer who does not wish to participate in the program?
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT v. UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORPORATION
Decided:
Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.
GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.
DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture may constitutionally require handlers of California peaches, nectarines, and plums to fund generic advertising of those fruits.
CITY OF BOERNE v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether Congress could constitutionally enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which establishes a higher standard than the one pronounced by the United States Supreme Court for determining whether a law impermissibly infringes on a person's right to exercise his or her religion.
44 LIQUORMART, INC. AND PEOPLES SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND AND RHODE ISLAND LIQUOR STORES ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages.
FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC., AND JOHN T. BLAKELY
Decided:
Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?
ROBERT E. RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING COMPANY
Decided:
Whether the Federal Alcohol Administration Act may constitutionally prohibit brewers from displaying the alcohol content of their beer on the beer's label.
SILVIA S. IBANEZ v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from including in her advertising truthful references to the facts that she is a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner.
UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. EDGE BROADCASTING COMPANY T/A POWER 94
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a broadcaster licensed in a state that bans lotteries from broadcasting lottery advertisements, even when the vast majority of the broadcaster's audience resides in a state that allows lotteries.
LAMB'S CHAPEL AND JOHN STEIGERWALD v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether a local school district that allows its facilities to be used for social and civic purposes may prevent a religious organization from using the facilities to show a movie that presents family issues from a religious perspective.
FRED H. EDENFIELD, et al. v. SCOTT FANE
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a certified public accountant from directly and personally soliciting non-clients.
CITY OF CINCINNATI v. DISCOVERY NETWORK, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial flyers from news racks on city-owned property violates the First Amendment.
DOMINIC P. GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA
Decided:
(1) Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from making statements to the press that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and, if so, (2) whether the State Bar of Nevada properly applied the rule in this case.
LEATHERS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF ARKANSAS v. MEDLOCK et al.
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment prevents a state from imposing a sales tax on only selected segments of the media.
GARY E. PEEL v. ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS
Decided:
Whether a rule barring lawyers from advertising certification as a legal specialist violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.
JIMMY SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organizations.
FRAZEE v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al.
Decided:
Whether Illinois denial of unemployment compensation for a man who refused a temporary retail position because the job would have required him to work on Sunday, confliction with his personal religious beliefs, was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
SHAPERO v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a Kentucky rule barring the mailing or delivery of written advertisements related to a "specific event . . . involving or relating to the addressee . . . as distinct from the general public" violated the First Amendment.
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF OREGON, et al. v. SMITH
Decided:
Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment permits the State of Oregon to include religiously inspired peyote use within the reach of its general criminal prohibition on use of that drug, and thus permits the State to deny unemployment benefits to the persons dismissed from their jobs because of religiously inspired use.
RICHARD E. LYNG, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al.
Decided:
Whether the construction of a paved road through federal land and allowance of timber harvesting by the United States Forest Service violates the Free Exercise Clause when part of such land has historically been used by certain American Indians for religious rituals that depend upon privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting.
O'LONE, ADMINISTRATOR, LEESBURG PRISON COMPLEX, et al. v. ESTATE OF SHABAZZ et al.
Decided:
Whether prison regulations that required prisoners to work outside on Friday afternoons, thereby making it impossible for them to attend Muslim congregational services held at that time, violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
HOBBIE v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF FLORIDA et al.
Decided:
Whether refusal to award unemployment compensation to person terminated for reasons due to conflicts between religion and employment violates the Free Exercise Clause.
O'CONNOR et ux. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Decided:
Whether a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applied to preliminary hearings as conducted in California
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. ROY et al.
Decided:
Whether the requirement that citizens must obtain a Social Security number for their daughter in order to qualify for benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children and the Food Stamp program, when citizen contends that obtaining a Social Security number violates their religious beliefs, violates the Free Exercise Clause.
ZAUDERER v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Decided:
Whether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.
BOLGER et al. v. YOUNGS DRUG PRODUCTS CORP.
Decided:
Whether a federal law prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives violates the First Amendment.
MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
Decided:
Whether a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of periodic publications violates the guaranted of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. LEE
Decided:
Whether the imposition of social security is unconstitutional for those who oppose based on religious grounds.
in re R. M. J.
Decided:
Whether a Missouri law limiting areas of information that can be advertised by lawyers violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
HEFFRON, SECRETARY AND MANAGER OF THE MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY BOARD OF MANAGERS, et al. v. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds.
THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.
Decided:
Whether denial of unemployment compensation because employee voluntary terminated employment based on religious beliefs and not upon a good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work, as required by Indiana statute, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a state-issued ban on promotional advertising by public utility companies in order to conserve energy resources violates the First Amendment.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether an order of appellee New York Public Service Commission that prohibits the inclusion by appellant and other public utility companies in monthly bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and thus is invalid.
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.
JONES et al. v. WOLF et al.
Decided:
FRIEDMAN et al. v. ROGERS et al.
Decided:
In re PRIMUS
Decided:
Whether the sanctioning of an ACLU lawyer for informng a woman through direct mail about legal assistance available from the ACLU violated speech and associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN.
Decided:
Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.
MCDANIEL v. PATY et al.
Decided:
Whether a Tennessee constitutional provision barring [m]inister[s] of the Gospel, or priest[s] of any denomination whatever from serving as a delegate violates the Free Exercise Clause.
BATES et al. v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
Decided:
Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, et al. v. MAYNARD ET UX.
Decided:
Whether the State of New Hampshire may constitutionally enforce criminal sanctions against persons who cover the motto "Live Free or Die" on passenger vehicle license plates because that motto is repugnant to their moral and religious beliefs.
PARKER SEAL CO. v. CUMMINS
Decided:
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY et al. v. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., et al.
Decided:
Under the First Amendment as applied to the states, can a licensed pharmacist be disciplined for unprofessional conduct if he "publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms . . . for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription"?
BIGELOW v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
An advertisement carried in appellants newspaper led to his conviction for a violation of a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor, by the sale or circulation of any publication, to encourage or prompt the procuring of an abortion. The issue is whether the editor-appellant's First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally abridged by the statute.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether a broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on issues they consider important violates the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment.
WISCONSIN v. YODER et al.
Decided:
Whether Wisconsins compulsory school-attendance law (which requires a childs school attendance until age 16) violates the Free Exercise rights of Amish who declined for religious reasons to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade.
CRUZ v. BETO, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR
Decided:
Whether a prisons denial to an alleged Buddhist prisoner of use of the prison chapel and permission to write to his religious advisor and his placement in solitary confinement for sharing his religious material with other prisoners violated his right to free exercise.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the New York Times and the Washington Post could be enjoined from publishing excerpts from a classified Defense Department study of U.S. involvement in the Indochina War. More broadly, whether the First Amendment protects the publication of "classified information."
CLAY, AKA ALI v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
The validity of Petitioners Armed Forces induction notice, which was grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioners claim to classified as a conscientious objector.
DEWEY v. REYNOLDS METALS CO.
Decided:
GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the conscientious objector exemption for persons subject to service in the armed forces of the United States violates the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment since the exemption requires the objector to oppose all wars.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the section of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which allows a conscientious objector status only for those who believe in a Supreme Being, violates the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment for those who neither confirm nor deny their belief in a Supreme Being but whose objections to all war are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.
SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
COOPER v. PATE, WARDEN
Decided:
SHERBERT v. VERNER et al., MEMBERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, et al.
Decided:
Whether a law denying unemployment benefits to someone who cannot find work because their religious beliefs prohibit working on Saturdays is constitutional.
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK
Decided:
BRAUNFELD et al. v. BROWN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.
Decided:
Whether a Philadelphia statute preventing sale of retail on Sundays constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion and interferes with free exercise by imposing serious economic disadvantages to member of the Orthodox Jewish Faith, who must close their businesses on Saturday in order to observe their Sabbath.
CAMMARANO et ux. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SPEISER v. RANDALL, ASSESSOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether a California law requiring a loyalty oath in order to gain a tax exemption violated due process of law.
POULOS v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Decided:
Whether a New Hampshire ordinance prohibiting holding of a religious meeting in a public park without a license violates the Free Exercise Clause.
FOWLER v. RHODE ISLAND
Decided:
Whether a municipal ordinance which is applied to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there, violates the First Amendment..
BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Decided:
Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.
NIEMOTKO v. MARYLAND
Decided:
KUNZ v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which prescribes no appropriate standard for administrative action and gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the city streets is invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
KOVACS v. COOPER, JUDGE
Decided:
Whether a municipal ban on the use of any sound system emitting "loud and raucous" noises on public streets violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
SAIA v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a local sound amplification law that required a police permit violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Contrast Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) upholding a similar law.
DONALDSON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, v. READ MAGAZINE, INC. ET AL.
Decided:
Whether an order issued by the Postmaster General that mail to Read Magazine be marked "fraudulent" and returned to sender violated the First Amendment
MARSH v. ALABAMA
Decided:
Whether a state, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management.
TUCKER v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a Texas Penal Code statute which makes it an offense for any peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise to willfully refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by owner applies to a person distributing religious material
THOMAS v. COLLINS, SHERIFF
Decided:
Does a Texas law requiring labor organizers to secure permission to solicit members violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al.
Decided:
Whether charging a jury with determining the truth or falsity of Defendants religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.
FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MCCORMICK
Decided:
Whether an ordinance requiring agent selling books to pay license fee of $1 per day or $15 per year is an improper restriction on "freedom of religion" as applied to resident preacher who earned his living by sale of religious books.
PRINCE v. MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether Massachusetts child labor laws, stating no boy under the age of twelve and no girl under eighteen shall sell, expose or offer for sale any newspaper, magazines, periodicals, contravene the Fourteenth Amendment by denying or abridging appellants freedom of religion.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
DOUGLAS et al. v. CITY OF JEANNETTE et al.
Decided:
Whether a Pennsylvania statue, which prohibits the solicitation of orders for merchandise without first procuring a license from city authorities and paying a license tax, violates the plaintiffs First Amendment rights as Jehovahs witnesses to solicit goods relating to their religion.
LARGENT v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance, which makes it unlawful for any person to solicit orders or to sell books, wares or merchandise with the residence portion of Paris, TX without first filing an application an obtaining a permit, violates the Fourteenth Amendment when the person wants to sell religious material.
JAMISON v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a Dallas city ordinance, which prohibits distribution of handbills on the streets, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when the material being distributed is religious in its nature.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
Whether an ordinance requiring reasonable license fee of transient distributors of books or pamphlets for sale on streets, taking no account of whether material is religious or not, is unconstitutional as denying "freedom of speech","press," or "religion".
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. v. GOBITIS et al.
Decided:
Whether the requirement in the participation of in the pledge of allegiance, which includes the word God, exacted from a child who refuses upon since religious grounds, infringes upon due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL et al. v. CONNECTICUT
Decided:
Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First & Fourteenth Amendment free speech and/or free exercise rights?
LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN
Decided:
Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.
HALTER v. NEBRASKA
Decided:
Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether a conviction for bigamy violated the First Amendment rights of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who asserted that faithful practice of his religion required him to engage in polygamy.