Cantwell v. Connecticut

E15188

First Amendment case United States Supreme Court case free exercise of religion case incorporation doctrine case

Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.

Observed surface forms (1)

Surface form	As subject	As object
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)	0	2

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	First Amendment case → United States Supreme Court case → free exercise of religion case → incorporation doctrine case →
appliedToStatesThrough	Fourteenth Amendment → surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
areaOfLaw	First Amendment law → constitutional law → religion clauses jurisprudence →
arguedDate	1940-03-29 →
citation	310 U.S. 296 →
constitutionalProvisionInvolved	First Amendment to the United States Constitution → Free Exercise Clause → First Amendment to the United States Constitution → surface form: Free Speech Clause
court	Supreme Court of the United States →
decisionDate	1940-05-20 →
fullName	Cantwell v. Connecticut self-link →
holding	A state may not unduly restrict religious proselytizing through a licensing system that vests discretion in a public official. → The Connecticut statute requiring a certificate for religious solicitation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. → Free Exercise Clause → surface form: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
issue	Whether a state can require prior approval before individuals engage in religious solicitation and proselytizing. → Whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause applies to state governments. →
jurisdiction	United States federal law →
legalRule	Government may regulate time, place, and manner of solicitation but may not vest officials with discretion to determine what is a religious cause. → Restrictions on religious solicitation must be neutral and not based on the content or legitimacy of religious beliefs. → States may not condition the exercise of religious proselytizing on a prior license that depends on official judgment of religious value. →
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Owen J. Roberts → surface form: Owen J. Roberts
opinionType	unanimous opinion →
page	296 →
petitioner	Cantwell family → Newton Cantwell →
priorHistory	State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) →
relatedCase	Everson v. Board of Education → Murdock v. Pennsylvania → Reynolds v. United States →
relatedConcept	incorporation of the Bill of Rights → prior restraint → religious proselytizing →
reporter	United States Reports →
respondent	Connecticut → surface form: State of Connecticut
significance	Clarified limits on state regulation of religious solicitation and proselytizing. → First Supreme Court case to explicitly apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states. → Important early incorporation case for First Amendment religious freedoms. →
stateInvolved	Connecticut →
subjectMatter	door-to-door solicitation → freedom of speech → religious liberty →
volume	310 →
vote	9-0 →

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) → followedBy → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

this entity surface form: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut → fullName → Cantwell v. Connecticut self-link →

Newton Cantwell → hasRoleIn → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

Free Exercise Clause → interpretedInCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

Cantwell family → legalCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

Murdock v. Pennsylvania → relatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) → relatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut →

this entity surface form: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)