## Facts

- Newton Cantwell and his sons (Jehovah’s Witnesses) proselytized in New Haven, Connecticut, distributing religious literature and using a portable phonograph.
- Jesse Cantwell asked two men for permission to play a record; after they consented, he played a recording that sharply criticized organized religion, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.
- The listeners became angry but did not attack Cantwell; there was no evidence of threats, abusive epithets, or disorderly conduct beyond conveying the message.
- The Cantwells were charged with (1) violating a state solicitation statute requiring a certificate before soliciting for a “religious, charitable or philanthropic” cause and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
- A state officer issued certificates only after deciding whether a cause was genuinely “religious” or a bona fide charity and met “reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity.”
- The Cantwells were convicted; the state supreme court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment’s Free Exercise protections against state action.
2. Whether a licensing scheme that conditions religious solicitation on an official’s discretionary approval is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free exercise.
3. Whether applying breach-of-the-peace doctrine to peaceful but offensive religious advocacy violates freedom of religion and expression.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment, including free exercise of religion, from state infringement.
- The solicitation statute was unconstitutional as applied because it imposed a prior restraint by making religious solicitation depend on an official’s discretionary determination of religious legitimacy and acceptability.
- The breach-of-the-peace conviction could not stand because Cantwell’s conduct, on these facts, did not amount to incitement or a genuine threat to public order.

## Legal Principles

- The Free Exercise Clause is among the fundamental liberties protected from state abridgment through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Freedom of belief is absolute; regulation of religiously motivated conduct is permitted only when exercised to protect legitimate public interests without unduly infringing protected freedoms.
- A scheme requiring official permission to engage in religious solicitation, where permission turns on an official’s discretionary judgment about whether a cause is “religious” or otherwise acceptable, is unconstitutional censorship and prior restraint.
- Judicial review does not cure an unconstitutional prior restraint where the right’s exercise is conditioned on prior approval.
- States may adopt neutral, generally applicable regulations governing the time, place, and manner of solicitation to protect public order, but may not suppress speech or religious advocacy solely because it is offensive or provokes anger absent real incitement or imminent disorder.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause applies to the states and invalidated Connecticut’s discretionary licensing requirement for religious solicitation as a prior restraint, while also reversing a breach-of-the-peace conviction based on peaceful proselytizing that offended listeners but did not constitute incitement or a true disturbance of public order.


Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)