Decided: Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)
Religious Tax Exemptions: Property Taxes & Political Speech
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Should people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as are expected of those who sell or distribute non-religious materials? Does "freedom of religion" also mean "freedom from having to pay government fees" like everyone else?
Background Information
This case dealt with almost the exact same issues as Murdock v. Pennsylvania and, in fact, occurred in the same town of Jeannette, Pennsylvania. Robert L. Douglas was a Jehovah's Witness who filed suit on behalf of himself and other Jehovah's Witnesses, both in Pennsylvania and in adjoining states to restrain the town of Jeannette from threatening criminal prosecution against them for selling merchandise without first obtaining a license from the city authorities and paying a license tax.
Court Decision
At the time of this case was submitted to the Supreme Court, Murdock v. Pennsylvania had not yet been decided - what Douglas and others were seeking was an injunction to prevent the ordinance against selling religious materials without a license from being enforced until the Supreme Court could reach a decision in the Murdock case.
The Supreme Court rejected this appeal, arguing that it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." That, however, was not occurring here so the request for an injunction was denied. Of course, once this decision was actually handed down the decision in Murdock was also made, so it really didn't matter one way or the other on a practical level.
Significance
Just because a law may be unconstitutional doesn't automatically mean that the government cannot continue to enforce it in good faith.
Further Information
Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)
-->