Dateline: 06/18/02

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down as violating First Amendment rights of free-speech, a municipal ordinance requiring door-to-door religious or political advocates to obtain permits.

In its decision, the court ruled in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, striking down a Stratton, Ohio city ordinance prohibiting "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor ’ s office.

Winners of several First Amendment-based appeals over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses practitioners travel door-to-door throughout the U.S. promoting their faith and distributing religious-based literature.

Just following court's history, says majority

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion, "For over 50 years, this Court has invalidated on First Amendment grounds restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering by Jehovah ’s Witnesses."

Specifically, the majority found that provisions of Stratton's ordinance "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."

Extending the court's ruling to political advocacy, Justice Stevens writes, "Through this facial challenge, we consider the door-to-door canvassing regulation not only as it applies to religious proselytizing, but also to anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills."

Justice Rehnquist the lone dissenter

As the only dissenter, Justice Rehnquist argues that the Stratton ordinance was "content neutral" and that, rather than barring the door-to-door distribution of anything, "It merely regulates the manner in which one must canvass." 

Further, Justice Rehnquist contended that in the 1989 case of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the Supreme Court had established that the "government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information."

The case was Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton.