User:Pseudo-Richard/Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in the United States

In the United States and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech. The resulting litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and in most Western societies.

Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group."

"The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system."

Before the Jehovah's Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to acts of Congress and more broadly to acts of the federal government.

Since the 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have often invoked the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to protect their religious beliefs and practices, such as proselytism, refusing to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, and conscientious objection to military service.

Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Significant cases have struck down laws making flag salutes compulsory, imposing limits of preaching in public (proselytizing), and instituting conscription&mdash;upholding a right to conscientious objection to military service.

Although the Jehovah's Witnesses did not win every case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark decisions of First Amendment law. These helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights.

The cases brought before the Court by the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed the Court to consider a range of issues: mandatory flag salute, sedition, free speech, literature distribution and draft law. These cases proved to be pivotal moments in the formation of constitutional law. Jehovah's Witnesses' court victories have strengthened civil liberties including the protection of religious conduct from federal and state interference, the right to abstain from patriotic rituals and military service and the right to engage in public discourse.

Persecution
Because of their non-orthodox beliefs and practices, the Jehovah's Witnesses have faced persecution, violence and government strictures on the exercise of civil liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Archibald Cox wrote, "The principal victims of religious persecution in the United States in the twentieth century were Jehovah's Witnesses."

Strong resentment and anger were sometimes directed at the Jehovah's Witnesses (then called Bible Students) in the 1910s and 1920s. This was largely due to the Watch Tower Society's outspoken manner; it was not uncommon for members to carry placards outside churches and in the streets proclaiming the imminent destruction of church members, along with both church and government institutions if they did not flee from "false religion". Typical examples of the Watchtower's attitude are found in the Watch Tower Society's book publication The Finished Mystery (SS-7), 1917 edition: "Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of 'Christianity.'" "The people who are the strength of Christendom shall be cut off in the brief but terribly eventful period beginning in 1918 A.D. A third part are 'burned with fire in the midst of the city.' Fire symbolizes destruction. . . .After 1918 the people supporting churchianity will cease to be its supporters, be destroyed as adherents, by the spiritual pestilence of errors abroad, and by the famine of the Word of God among them." (Pages 398, 399) The Bible Students believed religion was a "racket and a snare" and refused to be identified as a 'religion' for some time.

World War I
The Finished Mystery, published in 1917, was controversial in its criticism of Catholic and Protestant clergy and Christian involvement in war. Citing this book, the United States federal government indicted Rutherford and the new board of directors for violating the Espionage Act on May 7, 1918. They were found guilty and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. However, in March 1919, the judgment against them was reversed and they were released from prison and the charges were later dropped. Patriotic fervor during World War I fueled persecution of the Bible Students both in America and in Europe.

Litigation to establish civil liberties
The plan to establish the right to proselytize through use of the law was originally conceived by Judge Rutherford. Starting in the late 1920s, Judge Rutherford began training Jehovah's Witnesses to fight in their local courts anyone and everyone who opposed the work of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Religious services at Kingdom Halls included "mock trials", with Elders playing the roles of Prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Arrests of Witnesses began in 1928 soon after Rutherford commanded all members to proselytize on Sundays. This intrusion on the Sabbath particularly infuriated practicing Christians who were the target of hateful rhetoric from the Witnesses. Complaints began to pour into local police stationsacross the country. In response, many communities instituted new ordinances aimed at halting the Witnesses' activities.

However, prior to 1935, Witnesses in the field received little formal legal support from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society headquarters. While a standardized protocol for dealing with legal matters was available to all members in 1935, Witnesses who had been arrested were "expected to conduct their own defenses at the trial level, following a standard set ofinstructions issued by the Society." If Witnesses were issued fines by the courts, they were instructed to refuse to pay, choosing jail time instead. Prior to 1933, no formal plan to appeal cases was in place. Therefore, many of these early cases ended with Witnesses serving time in local jails.

In the early 1930s, Witnesses were regularly charged with violations of licensing ordinances anddisturbing the peace. The number of Witnesses arrested for violations of such laws increased nearly fourfold, from 268 in 1933 to 1,149 in 1936. By 1935, the number of cases across the United States were so numerous that Rutherford decided to form a separate Legal Department within the WatchTower Society, selecting Olin R. Moyle, a Jehovah's Witness Attorney from Wisconsin, to head it up. In 1938, Moyle won the Lovell v. City of Griffin case before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, in 1939, Moyle, who had been a teetotalling Prohibitionist before he was a Jehovah's Witness, got into a personal spat with Judge Rutherford over Rutherford's heavy drinking and cursing. Moyle submitted his resignation, along with a letter denouncing what he considered to be Rutherford's unchristian personal habits. Judge Rutherford was furious, and had the WatchTower Society's Board of Directors formally fire Moyle.

In late 1939, Judge Rutherford selected Hayden C. Covington to replace Moyle as head of the WatchTower Society's Legal Department. Hayden Covington was a young attorney from San Antonio, Texas, who had only recently converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Covington's personal habits more closely mirrored those of Judge Rutherford than did Moyle's.

Moyle had been handling the famous Minersville School District v. Gobitis case, and had won at the trial court level as well as at the appellate level. However, after Judge Rutherford fired and slandered Moyle, the Minersville School District appealed the Gobitis case to the Supreme Court. Judge Rutherford himself argued the case before the Supreme Court in 1940, and the Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses by a vote of 8-1. It was this ruling that triggered the nationwide wave of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses that lasted for the next several months.

The Legal Plan
With the support of Rutherford, Covington devised what the Witnesses call "The Legal Plan". Covington's plan to bring Jehovah's Witness issues before the Supreme Court was unique in that it was the first attempt to apply a broadly conceived plan of what has been termed "vigilant" or "disciplined" litigation to First Amendment issues.

The objective of the plan was to get the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court justices by challenging the U.S. legal system through appeals and trials. Covington picked which communities were to be targeted, favoring areas that were mainly Catholic. Covington planned for the cases to be tried in the courts and then challenged through appeals all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Over a period of 15 years, Covington and his staff of Watchtower lawyers legally substantiated the Witnesses' right to distribute literature door-to-door, on public streets and on streets owned by private corporations and the federal government; the right to carry out these activities without first securing a permit or paying a tax; the right to use sound-amplifying equipment to disseminate their beliefs; and the right to be protected from arrest under unconstitutional ordinances. By implementing an extensive, detailed legal plan to overturn ordinances that interfered with their evangelical mission, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society broadened protection under the First Amendment for their members and for all Americans. In the process, Hayden Covington came to be hailed as one of the greatest civil liberties attorneys in American history.

Training of Jehovah's Witnesses
The Watchtower lawyers implemented a comprehensive campaign to prepare Witnesses for the legal battles they would face. Watchtower staff that were sent to these areas carried a letter that notified local police and law enforcement of Witnesses' activities. Covington instructed staff members in the field not to apply for permits to preach as being required to do so was considered insulting to God. He asserted that, under the First Amendment, preaching was a right, not a privilege.

The Witnesses were prepared to be arrested and were coached in how to conduct themselves in that eventuality. Witnesses were instructed in how to prepare for violence, arrest, trial,appeal, and jail time. They were provided names of attorneys and suggestions for obtaining bail. Jehovah's Witnesses were trained what to say and how to behave when being arrested, while in jail, and at trial (which they assumed they would lose), so as to make their case the best possible for the appeals process which was to follow. Appellate cases were what the WatchTower Society was hoping for, and it was at the appellate level that the WatchTower Society would jump in and help with the case.

Street-corner witnessing
In February of 1940, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society implemented "street corner witnessing,"with one or two workers placed on downtown street comers handing out literature to those whopassed by. This new practice also stirred up long-forgotten ordinances, and Witnesses werearrested for being public nuisances, clogging sidewalks, and impairing public safety.

License Requirement for Literature Distribution / Parade & Park Permit

 * Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)
 * Schneider v. State (of New Jersey) (1939)
 * Cantwell v. State of Connecticut (1940)
 * Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
 * Jones v. City of Opelika (1942)
 * Busey v. District of Columbia (1943)
 * Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)
 * Jamison v. State of Texas (1943)
 * Jones v. City of Opelika (1943)
 * Largent v. State of Texas (1943)
 * Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
 * Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)
 * Saia v. People of the State of New York (1948)
 * Niemotko v. Maryland (1951)
 * Fowler v. Rhode Island (1951)
 * Poulos v. New Hampshire (1953)
 * Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002)

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Court ruled that the statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was a prior restraint that vested the state with excessive power in determining which groups must obtain a license.

Following Cantwell, the free-speech cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses rolled on. In 1943 alone, three major decisions were decided in favor of the organization that had far broader implications for free speech. In May, the Court overturned a year-old decision in Jones v. Opelika and declared it unconstitutional to charge a flat fee to distribute literature.

"Freed from that controlling precedent," wrote Justice William O. Douglas, "we can restore to their high, constitutional position the liberties of itinerant evangelists who disseminate their religious beliefs and the tenets of their faith through distribution of literature."

In the same decision, in the companion case, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the majority also found that a Pennsylvania town could not tax the distribution of Jehovah's Witness books and pamphlets.

Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)
Lovell v. City of Griffin was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.

Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)
In 1939, the Supreme Court invalidated an Irvington, New Jersey, ordinance that provided: "No person ... shall canvass, solicit, distribute circulars, or other matter, or call from house to house ... without first having reported to and received a written permit from the Chief of Police." In striking the ordinance down, the high court wrote, unequivocally: "To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees."

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
The Court ruled that the statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was a prior restraint that vested the state with excessive power in determining which groups must obtain a license.

Cantwell v. Connecticut was a 1940 Supreme Court decision in which three Jehovah's Witnesses, Newton Cantwell and his two sons, were convicted of unlicensed soliciting of funds for charitable or religious purposes. A Connecticut statute required licenses for those soliciting for religious or charitable purposes. The Cantwells said they did not get a license because they did not believe the government had the right to determine whether the Witnesses were a religion. They maintained the statute denied the trio their due process rights under the 14th Amendment, and it also denied them their freedom of speech and religious expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Owen Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion that "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution." The Cantwell decision marked the first time the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the free exercise clause into the 14th Amendment, something it would do from that time forward.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses for engaging in a public parade without a license. The Court ruled that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety.

Jones v. Opelika I (1942)
Jones v. City of Opelika (1942) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute prohibiting the sale of books without a license was constitutional because it only covered individuals engaged in a commercial activity rather than a religious ritual.

The Jehovah's Witnesses cases
Of the 72 cases brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses before the U.S. Supreme Court, four are known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses cases" because the decisions for all four were handed down by the US Supreme Court on May 3, 1943.


 * 1) In Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (319 US 105), the Court held that a City of Jeannette, PA ordinance requiring a licensing fee was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
 * 2) In the one paragraph Opelika II per curiam decision (319 US 103), the Court vacated Jones v. Opelika from 1942 on the basis of the principles articulated in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
 * 3) In Martin v. City of Struthers (319 US 141), the Court invalidated a city ordinance from Struthers, OH forbidding knocking on doors/ringing bells to distribute "handbills, circulars or other advertisements."
 * 4) In Douglas v. City of Jeannette, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the District Court to proceed with criminal prosecutions of 21 Jehovah's Witnesses arrested in Jeannette, PA during a Witness "Watch Tower Campaign" in 1939 in Jeannette despite the fact that another case (Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) was already in progress and could invalidate all the arrests in Douglas. The Supreme Court held that it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury."  The Supreme Court refused to prevent the City of Jeannette, Pennsylvania, from threatening prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses who were violating a law requiring the licensing of people selling books even while that law was being challenged before the Supreme Court.

Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)
Follett v. Town of McCormick was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials should not be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as those who sell or distribute non-religious materials.

Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002)
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violate the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

At issue was a question about anonymity in the First Amendment. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society disputed an ordinance in Stratton, Ohio that required a permit in order to preach from door-to-door. Ruling in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the U.S. Supreme Court said the ordinance went too far. The Court held that making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violate the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

"It is offensive," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."

Compulsory Flag Salute / Pledge of Allegiance
In the 1940's, more than 2,000 children were expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag because they were members of Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
 * West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
A school board in Minersville, Pennsylvania expelled 12-year-old Lillian Gobitas and her 10-year-old brother Billy for not pledging allegiance in the fall of 1935. Two years later, a U.S. federal judge ruled that the expulsion had violated their rights. In 1939 an appeals court agreed, and the school board took the case to the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require students to salute the flag.

The Court's decision triggered what Lillian Gobitas later called “open season on Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Angry mobs assaulted Witnesses, destroyed their property, boycotted their businesses and vandalized their houses of worship. In Little Rock, Arkansas, construction workers stormed a Witness convention, beat them with pipes, and shot and killed two of them. In Kennebunk, Maine, a mob of thousands burned a Witness hall.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt appealed publicly for calm, while newspaper editorials and the American legal community condemned the Gobitas decision as a blow to liberty. Several justices signaled their belief that the case had been “wrongly decided.”

The 1943 West Virginia v. Barnette decision reversed the decision of Minersville School District v. Gobitis. Argued by Witness attorney Hayden C. Covington, the case revisited the issue of mandatory flag salute. Justice Jackson penned the majority opinion stating, in part, that, “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court reversed a 1940 decision that said it was constitutional for a school to compel students to salute the flag.

Three years after it had decided that Jehovah's Witnesses could be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance, the high court dramatically changed its position. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.

Selective Service Classification / Conscientious Objector Status
Jehovah's Witnesses were among a number of religious groups and individuals that refused to do military service during World War II, claiming conscientious objection to war. Bringing eight cases on the issue to the Supreme Court in the 1940s and '50s, Jehovah's Witnesses helped define the parameters of conscientious objector status. Most notably in 1953, Jehovah's Witnesses expanded the definition that applied to themselves and others: Now ministers could be considered conscientious objectors even if they engage in secular work.

Private Property Rights vs. Religious Freedom

 * Martin v. City of Struthers (1943)
 * Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
 * Tucker v. Texas (1946)

Martin v. City of Struthers (1943)
In Martin v. City of Struthers, the Court invalidated a city ordinance enforced against the religious activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Struthers, Ohio ordinance flatly prohibited the door-to-door delivery of literature or handbills. In striking the Struthers ordinance down, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "While door to door distributors of literature may be either a nuisance or a blind for criminal activities, they may also be useful members of society engaged in the dissemination of ideas in accordance with the best tradition of free discussion."

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
Marsh v. Alabama was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, notwithstanding the fact that the sidewalk where the distribution was taking place was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

Tucker v. Texas (1946)
Tucker v. Texas was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that a statute making it an offense to distribute literature in government-owned town was invalid.

"Fighting Words" Doctrine

 * Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The fighting words doctrine was established by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In that case, a Jehovah's Witness had reportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest, thus establishing that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Child Labor Laws and Religious Freedom
Prince v. Massachusetts was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

"Patriot" Statutes and Religious Freedom
Taylor v. State of Mississippi was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal sanction cannot be imposed for communication that has not been shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or our government.

Unemployment Compensation Benefits and Religious Freedom

 * Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div. (1981)

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion under Sherbert v. Verner.

License Tag Motto and Religious Freedom

 * Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

Wooley v. Maynard was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.