## Facts

- Rev. William F. Hopkins, a minister in Elkton, Maryland, performed a high volume of marriage ceremonies.
- Maryland criminalized erecting or maintaining any sign or display advertising “intended to aid in the solicitation or performance of marriages.”
- Hopkins maintained at least two signs: one identifying him as “Rev. W. F. Hopkins,” and another illuminated highway sign stating “W. F. Hopkins, Notary Public, Information.”
- The State introduced evidence that the signs were intended to draw couples seeking quick marriages.
- Hopkins was convicted in the Circuit Court for Cecil County.
- On appeal, Hopkins argued (1) the statute violated the First Amendment religion clauses as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment because performing marriages was part of his ministry, and (2) he relied on advice from the local State’s Attorney that the signs were lawful, but the trial court excluded that testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether a statute banning marriage-solicitation advertising violates the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the State may regulate marriage-solicitation advertising through neutral, generally applicable legislation aimed at public order, even if the regulated conduct has religious motivations.
3. Whether reliance on advice from the State’s Attorney (or counsel) that the conduct was lawful is admissible and can negate criminal responsibility.
4. Whether Maryland’s rule that a criminal jury may judge law as well as fact violates federal due process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the conviction in a modified opinion.
- The court held the advertising prohibition was a constitutional exercise of the State’s police power and did not infringe the religion clauses.
- The court held exclusion of the State’s Attorney advice testimony was not reversible error; misunderstanding or ignorance of law is not a defense, so any error was harmless.
- The court reaffirmed that Maryland’s constitutional provision making juries judges of law and fact in criminal cases does not violate the federal Due Process Clause.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourteenth Amendment applies First Amendment religion-clause limits to state legislation.
- Freedom of religious belief is absolute, but religiously motivated conduct may be regulated to protect society through neutral, generally applicable laws.
- Marriage is a civil contract subject to extensive state regulation, even though it may also have religious significance.
- Advice of counsel or advice of a prosecutor does not generally excuse criminal conduct; ignorance or misconstruction of law is no defense.
- A state constitutional rule permitting juries to judge law as well as fact in criminal cases is not, by itself, inconsistent with federal due process.

## Conclusion

Maryland upheld a statute prohibiting signage intended to solicit or facilitate marriages, treating it as neutral regulation of conduct connected to the civil aspects of marriage rather than a restriction on religion, and affirmed Hopkins’s conviction while rejecting reliance on prosecutorial advice as a defense.


Hopkins v. State, 193 Md. 489, 69 A.2d 456 (Md. 1949)