BUSEY ET AL.
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted in the District of Columbia for selling religious magazines without obtaining a required license and paying the associated tax, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case after determining in companion cases (Jones v. Opelika and Murdock v. Pennsylvania) that similar license tax requirements unconstitutionally burdened religious freedom under the First Amendment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*580] Per Curiam.
In this case petitioners, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, were convicted of selling, on the streets of the District of Columbia, magazines which expound their religious views, without first procuring the license and paying the license tax required by § 47-2336 of the District of Columbia Code (1940), In affirming the conviction the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia below had two questions before it: whether the statute was applicable to petitioners, and if so whether its application as to them infringed the First Amendment. The court construed the statute as applicable and sustained its constitutionality (75 U.
S. App.
D. C. 352, 129 F. 2d 24), following the decision in Cole v. Fort Smith, 202 Ark. 614, 151 S. W. 2d 1000, the judgment in which was affirmed by this Court in Bowden v. Fort Smith, 316 U. S. 584, one of the cases argued together with Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S.
584. Since the decision below, and after hearing reargument in the Opelika case, we have vacated our earlier judgment and held the license tax imposed in that case to be unconstitutional. Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S.
105. Petitioners urge us to construe the District of Columbia statute as inapplicable in order to avoid the constitutional infirmity which might otherwise exist — an infirmity conceded by respondent on the oral argument before us. In view of our decisions in the Opelika and Murdock cases, we vacate the judgment in this case and remand the cause to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to enable it to reexamine its rulings on the construction and validity of the District ordinance in the light of those decisions. Cf. New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U. S. 688, 690-691, and cases cited.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1950)…U.S. 507, 518, 68 S.Ct. 665, 671, 92 L.Ed. 840. . Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. 1290; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81; Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579, 63 S.Ct. 1277, 87 L.Ed. 1598; Busey v. District of Columbia, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 138 F. 2d 592. . Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 604, 62 S.Ct. 1231, 86 L.Ed. 1691, 141 A.L.R. 514. The dissent of Chief Justice Slone and the other dissents…
-
Barsky v. United States, 167 F.2d 241 (D.C. Cir. 1948)…Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103, 104, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. 1290. Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, supra, note 2, 319 U.S. at pages 114, 116, 63 S.Ct. at pages 875, 876. The Supreme Court’s mandate in Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579, 63 S.Ct. 1277, 87 L.Ed. 1598, required us to apply the principle of Murdock and Opelika to a tax imposed by .Act of Congress. Busey v. District of Columbia, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 188 F. 2d 592. The First Amendment similarly restricts legislative po…
-
Jones v. Clemmer, 163 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1947)….Ct. 82, 89 L.Ed. 604. Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 607, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082. Ameri [*854] ean Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 42 S.Ct. 72, 60 L.Ed. 189, 27 A.L.R. 360; Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579, 63 S. Ct. 1277, 87 L.Ed. 1598. Pub.L.No.198, Ch. 263, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 379. H.R.Rep. No. 451, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. The meaning of “shall be revoked” is not necessarily limited to “shall become revoked.” The participle “revoked,”…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania (city of Jeannette), 319 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1943)
- Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1942)
- Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1943)
- NEW York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1943)
- Busey v. Dist. of Columbia, 129 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1942)