Jones v. City of Opelika II (1943)

Religious Tax Exemptions: Licensing & Taxing Religion

--> -->

• Court Decisions • Newest Cases • Religious Holidays • Schools & Religion • Government & Religion • Church Disputes • Creationism • Jehovah's Witnesses • Minority Religions • Privacy • Free Speech

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

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

The city of Opelika charged Jones, a Jehovah's Witness, with violating a statute by selling books without a license. Jones had been distributing religious pamphlets and books in exchange for donations rather than selling them.

The contributions were not required; people without money were still given the literature. Jones did this because he had previously been convicted of selling books without a license and the Supreme Court had upheld his conviction. Jones alleged the statute claiming that it was an unfair tax on his religious freedom to distribute his message and religious materials.

Court Decision

With the majority opinion written by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled the practice of charging a flat fee for people distributing literature was unconstitutional. The freedom of press was not to be restricted only to those who can afford to pay the licensing fee.

The mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold' by itinerant preachers rather than 'donated' does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project.

The fact that the ordinance is 'nondiscriminatory' was deemed immaterial. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of "hucksters and peddlers."

Significance

This Court Decision overturns the initial Court Decision in Jones v. Opelika. In this instance, the power of the state to charge a fee for people who want to exercise their freedom of speech was denied.

This established what was essentially a constitutional double standard: government regulation of basic First Amendment freedoms was to be given special scrutiny when not applied to government regulation of general economic activity.

Further Information

Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)

-->