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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Cantwell v. Connecticut canonical | 8 |
| Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T61136 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cantwell v. Connecticut Context triple: [Free Exercise Clause, interpretedInCase, Cantwell v. Connecticut]
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cantwell v. Connecticut Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
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 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Cantwell v. Connecticut Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (10)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
this entity surface form:
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton
→
relatedCase
→
Cantwell v. Connecticut
ⓘ