U.S. Supreme Court Rules Ohio Town’s Door-to-Door Ordinance Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that local governments cannot require members of religious groups to register with them before embarking on door-to-door proselytizing.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the court said such requirements violate religious groups’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

The case had been closely watched by charity observers as a test of government limits on charitable solicitations.

The case centered 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 by name with the mayor’s office.

The registration forms, which are made available to the public, require 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 houses to explain their faith and to distribute literature.

A federal District Court judge ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster, and two of three sitting judges on the United States 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.

But the U.S. Supreme Court said that the local ordinance violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, as well as to anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills.

“The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the court’s majority opinion. “It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.”

He added: “Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor’s office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition.”

The majority opinion said that, had the village’s ordinance been construed to apply only to commercial activities and the solicitation of funds, it might have withstood the legal challenge.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who filed the only dissenting opinion in the case, said that the court’s majority view “renders local governments largely impotent to address the very real safety threat that canvassers pose” to residents of a community.

In addition, Justice Rehnquist said that the ruling “may result in less of the door-to-door communication that the court extols” if, as a result, more and more residents place “No Solicitation” signs on their property.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, may be found on the court’s Web site, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html.