Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Door-to-Door Solicitation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether local governments can regulate door-to-door proselytizing by religious groups — and by extension, canvassing for secular causes in which a wide range of nonprofit organizations engage.

The case centers on an ordinance passed in 1998 by the village of Stratton, Ohio, that requires anyone intending to visit private homes for the purpose of “advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization or cause” to first register with the mayor’s office. The registration form requires such persons to state why, where, and for how long they propose to canvass, as well as to provide information about themselves and their cause.

A local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses sued Stratton, contending that the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. A major part of their ministry involves visiting people’s homes to explain their faith and to distribute literature.

A federal District Court judge ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster, however, and two of three sitting judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, saying that the village had the right to pass a law protecting its residents from potential fraud and undue annoyance in their homes.

That majority ruled that “the ordinance is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague and it is narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests.”

The third appeals-court judge, however, in a partial dissent, contended that the ordinance unconstitutionally restricted the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ right of free speech because it required registration not only of commercial solicitors but also of people doing political, religious, or social advocacy, where the potential for fraud was much lower.

Similar to Previous Cases

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the case is similar to many they filed in the 1930’s and 1940’s against attempts to curb their activities.

“What right does a local municipality have to interpose itself between someone who wants to disseminate information and someone who wants to receive it?” asked Paul D. Polidoro, a lawyer for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, a Jehovah’s Witnesses publishing house that is one of the plaintiffs in the case.

“Free exercise of speech emanates from the Constitution,” he said. “I don’t believe the state has the power to regulate that.”

Oral arguments in the case, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, Ohio (No. 00-1737), are expected in February.