Reynolds v. United States

E5191

Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (46)

Predicate Object
instanceOf First Amendment case ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ
free exercise of religion case ⓘ
legal case ⓘ
areaOfLaw constitutional law ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ
religion clauses of the First Amendment ⓘ
category 1879 in United States case law ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court cases on freedom of religion ⓘ
United States polygamy case law ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtDecision Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite ⓘ
surface form: Morrison R. Waite
citation 98 U.S. 145 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
Free Exercise Clause ⓘ
country United States of America ⓘ
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1879-01-06 ⓘ
decisionType unanimous decision ⓘ
factPattern Reynolds v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form: George Reynolds was prosecuted for bigamy under federal law in the Utah Territory
fullCaseName Reynolds v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form: George Reynolds v. United States
holding Laws banning polygamy do not violate the Free Exercise Clause ⓘ
Religious duty is not a defense to a criminal indictment ⓘ
The Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws ⓘ
The Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief but not all religiously motivated conduct ⓘ
impact established the belief–action distinction in Free Exercise analysis ⓘ
upheld federal power to criminalize polygamy in U.S. territories ⓘ
jurisdiction United States government ⓘ
surface form: United States federal government
legalIssue constitutionality of criminal bans on polygamy ⓘ
scope of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment ⓘ
opinionAuthor Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite ⓘ
originatingJurisdiction Utah ⓘ
surface form: Territory of Utah
page 145 ⓘ
partyAffiliationOfDefendant member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ⓘ
petitioner George Reynolds ⓘ
precedentFor distinction between religious belief and religiously motivated conduct ⓘ
later Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence ⓘ
reasoning Allowing religious belief to excuse criminal acts would make religious doctrine superior to the law of the land ⓘ
Government may regulate actions that are in violation of social duties or subversive of good order ⓘ
respondent United States of America ⓘ
surface form: United States
result conviction of George Reynolds for bigamy affirmed ⓘ
statuteInvolved Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act ⓘ
subjectMatter bigamy ⓘ
polygamy ⓘ
religious liberty ⓘ
volume 98 U.S. ⓘ
yearDecided 1879 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (9)

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

Free Exercise Clause → interpretedInCase → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
Reynolds v. United States → fullCaseName → Reynolds v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
this entity surface form: George Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States → factPattern → Reynolds v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
this entity surface form: George Reynolds was prosecuted for bigamy under federal law in the Utah Territory
Cantwell v. Connecticut → relatedCase → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act → relatedToCase → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
Everson v. Board of Education → relatedTo → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
George Reynolds → defendantIn → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
George Reynolds → relatedCase → Reynolds v. United States ⓘ