MARSH v. ALABAMA
Supreme Court Cases
326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Related Cases
HOLT v. HOBBS
Decided:
Did the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy substantially burden the prisoner's free exercise of religion?
BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES
Decided:
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which requires canvassers to obtain a permit and reveal identifying information before going door-to-door to spread their political or religious messages violates the First Amendment.
LEILA JEANNE HILL, AUDREY HIMMELMANN, AND EVERITT W. SIMPSON, JR. v. COLORADO, et al.
Decided:
A Colorado statue establishes a 100-foot zone around the entrance to any "health care facility." Within this buffer zone, people may not, without consent "knowingly approach another person within 8 feet," for the purpose of passing out literature or engaging in "oral protest, education, or counseling" on a public sidewalk. The question is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener.
CITY OF BOERNE v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether Congress could constitutionally enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which establishes a higher standard than the one pronounced by the United States Supreme Court for determining whether a law impermissibly infringes on a person's right to exercise his or her religion.
RONALD W. ROSENBERGER, et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al.
Decided:
Whether a public university can deny funds to a religious student group that it provides to nonreligious student groups.
JUDY MADSEN, et al. v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether an injunction that limits the places where and the manner in which antiabortion protestors may demonstrate violates the First Amendment.
LAMB'S CHAPEL AND JOHN STEIGERWALD v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether a local school district that allows its facilities to be used for social and civic purposes may prevent a religious organization from using the facilities to show a movie that presents family issues from a religious perspective.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., AND BRIAN RUMBAUGH v. WALTER LEE
Decided:
Whether a governmental entity may constitutionally prohibit the distribution of literature and the solicitation of contributions in airport terminals.
CHARLES W. BURSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER FOR TENNESSEE v. MARY REBECCA FREEMAN
Decided:
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place.
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA et al.
Decided:
Is a sidewalk on post office property, which is intended only to facilitate traffic to and from the post office, a public forum? Does a government ban on solicitation emanating from such a sidewalk violate the First Amendment rights of respondents?
JIMMY SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organizations.
FRAZEE v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al.
Decided:
Whether Illinois denial of unemployment compensation for a man who refused a temporary retail position because the job would have required him to work on Sunday, confliction with his personal religious beliefs, was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
FRISBY et al. v. SCHULTZ et al.
Decided:
Whether a Brookfield, Wisconsin ordinance making it "unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual," and declaring that the primary purpose of the ban is to "protect[t] and preserve[e] the home" violates freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment.
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF OREGON, et al. v. SMITH
Decided:
Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment permits the State of Oregon to include religiously inspired peyote use within the reach of its general criminal prohibition on use of that drug, and thus permits the State to deny unemployment benefits to the persons dismissed from their jobs because of religiously inspired use.
RICHARD E. LYNG, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al.
Decided:
Whether the construction of a paved road through federal land and allowance of timber harvesting by the United States Forest Service violates the Free Exercise Clause when part of such land has historically been used by certain American Indians for religious rituals that depend upon privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting.
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" at Los Angeles International Airport violates the First Amendment
O'LONE, ADMINISTRATOR, LEESBURG PRISON COMPLEX, et al. v. ESTATE OF SHABAZZ et al.
Decided:
Whether prison regulations that required prisoners to work outside on Friday afternoons, thereby making it impossible for them to attend Muslim congregational services held at that time, violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
HOBBIE v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF FLORIDA et al.
Decided:
Whether refusal to award unemployment compensation to person terminated for reasons due to conflicts between religion and employment violates the Free Exercise Clause.
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Decided:
Whether a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applied to preliminary hearings as conducted in California
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. ROY et al.
Decided:
Whether the requirement that citizens must obtain a Social Security number for their daughter in order to qualify for benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children and the Food Stamp program, when citizen contends that obtaining a Social Security number violates their religious beliefs, violates the Free Exercise Clause.
CORNELIUS, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT v. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether federal exclusion of legal defense and political advocacy organizations from participation in a charity drive aimed at federal employees violates the First Amendment
UNITED STATES et al. v. GRACE et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal statutewhich bans picketing and the distribution of leaflets on the public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Courtviolates the 1st Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. LEE
Decided:
Whether the imposition of social security is unconstitutional for those who oppose based on religious grounds.
WIDMAR et al. v. VINCENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a public university鈥檚 interest in maintaining a "strict separation of church and state" allows it to bar religious student groups from reserving facilities for worship.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. COUNCIL OF GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS et al.
Decided:
Whether a 1934 federal statutewhich imposes a $300 fine on anyone who willfully deposits mailable matter in a letterbox without proper postageviolates the 1st Amendment free speech rights of organizations and individuals who spread their messages by putting pamphlets and other materials in private mailboxes.
HEFFRON, SECRETARY AND MANAGER OF THE MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY BOARD OF MANAGERS, et al. v. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds.
THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.
Decided:
Whether denial of unemployment compensation because employee voluntary terminated employment based on religious beliefs and not upon a good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work, as required by Indiana statute, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER et al. v. ROBINS et al.
Decided:
Whether the 1st and 14th Amendments protect the right of individuals to solicit signatures for political petitions in privately owned shopping centers.
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.
JONES et al. v. WOLF et al.
Decided:
MCDANIEL v. PATY et al.
Decided:
Whether a Tennessee constitutional provision barring [m]inister[s] of the Gospel, or priest[s] of any denomination whatever from serving as a delegate violates the Free Exercise Clause.
WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, et al. v. MAYNARD ET UX.
Decided:
Whether the State of New Hampshire may constitutionally enforce criminal sanctions against persons who cover the motto "Live Free or Die" on passenger vehicle license plates because that motto is repugnant to their moral and religious beliefs.
PARKER SEAL CO. v. CUMMINS
Decided:
GREER, COMMANDER, FORT DIX MILITARY RESERVATION, et al. v. SPOCK et al.
Decided:
Whether a government ban on political rallies on military bases violates the 1st Amendment.
HUDGENS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al.
Decided:
Whether striking union members have a First Amendment free speech right to picket inside a shopping center in order to advertise their strike against the owner of one of the stores.
LEHMAN v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS et al.
Decided:
Whether a city-owned placard on the side of a city bus, which has been opened for commericial advertising use but not political advertising, is a public forum.
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD
Decided:
Whether the city鈥檚 鈥渁nti-picketing鈥 ordinance and 鈥渁nti-noise鈥 ordinance violated the First Amendment.
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY
Decided:
Does a Chicago city ordinance which bans non-union picketing within 150 feet of a school building violate both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
LLOYD CORP., LTD. v. TANNER et al.
Decided:
Whether respondents, in exercise of asserted First Amendment rights, may distribute handbills in a private shopping mall contrary to the owner's wishes and contrary to a policy enforced against all handbilling.
WISCONSIN v. YODER et al.
Decided:
Whether Wisconsins compulsory school-attendance law (which requires a childs school attendance until age 16) violates the Free Exercise rights of Amish who declined for religious reasons to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade.
CRUZ v. BETO, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR
Decided:
Whether a prisons denial to an alleged Buddhist prisoner of use of the prison chapel and permission to write to his religious advisor and his placement in solitary confinement for sharing his religious material with other prisoners violated his right to free exercise.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the New York Times and the Washington Post could be enjoined from publishing excerpts from a classified Defense Department study of U.S. involvement in the Indochina War. More broadly, whether the First Amendment protects the publication of "classified information."
CLAY, AKA ALI v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
The validity of Petitioners Armed Forces induction notice, which was grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioners claim to classified as a conscientious objector.
DEWEY v. REYNOLDS METALS CO.
Decided:
GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the conscientious objector exemption for persons subject to service in the armed forces of the United States violates the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment since the exemption requires the objector to oppose all wars.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the section of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which allows a conscientious objector status only for those who believe in a Supreme Being, violates the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment for those who neither confirm nor deny their belief in a Supreme Being but whose objections to all war are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.
ROWAN, DBA AMERICAN BOOK SERVICE, et al. v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a statute under which an individual can require a mailer to stop all future mailings that the person "believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative" violates the mailer's rights of free speech and due process.
AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 et al. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether large shopping plazas are "public forums" where all citizens have a First Amendment right to petition and engage in peaceful expression. Picketing as protected free expression and the distinction between public forum v. property rights were also at issue.
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA
Decided:
Whether 1st and 14th Amendment freedoms give students the right to engage in peaceful protests on jailhouse grounds.
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Whether a breach of the peace conviction arising out of a peaceful sit-in in a segregated library infringed upon the petitioners First Amendment free speech, assembly, and petition rights.
SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
COOPER v. PATE, WARDEN
Decided:
SHERBERT v. VERNER et al., MEMBERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, et al.
Decided:
Whether a law denying unemployment benefits to someone who cannot find work because their religious beliefs prohibit working on Saturdays is constitutional.
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment was violated when civil rights protestors, marching in front of the state house, were arrested after refusing to disperse when a crowd gathered.
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK
Decided:
BRAUNFELD et al. v. BROWN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.
Decided:
Whether a Philadelphia statute preventing sale of retail on Sundays constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion and interferes with free exercise by imposing serious economic disadvantages to member of the Orthodox Jewish Faith, who must close their businesses on Saturday in order to observe their Sabbath.
POULOS v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Decided:
Whether a New Hampshire ordinance prohibiting holding of a religious meeting in a public park without a license violates the Free Exercise Clause.
FOWLER v. RHODE ISLAND
Decided:
Whether a municipal ordinance which is applied to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there, violates the First Amendment..
BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Decided:
Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.
NIEMOTKO v. MARYLAND
Decided:
KUNZ v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which prescribes no appropriate standard for administrative action and gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the city streets is invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
SAIA v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a local sound amplification law that required a police permit violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Contrast Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) upholding a similar law.
TUCKER v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a Texas Penal Code statute which makes it an offense for any peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise to willfully refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by owner applies to a person distributing religious material
THOMAS v. COLLINS, SHERIFF
Decided:
Does a Texas law requiring labor organizers to secure permission to solicit members violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al.
Decided:
Whether charging a jury with determining the truth or falsity of Defendants religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.
FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MCCORMICK
Decided:
Whether an ordinance requiring agent selling books to pay license fee of $1 per day or $15 per year is an improper restriction on "freedom of religion" as applied to resident preacher who earned his living by sale of religious books.
PRINCE v. MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether Massachusetts child labor laws, stating no boy under the age of twelve and no girl under eighteen shall sell, expose or offer for sale any newspaper, magazines, periodicals, contravene the Fourteenth Amendment by denying or abridging appellants freedom of religion.
MARTIN v. CITY OF STRUTHERS
Decided:
Whether a local ordinance that prohibited any person from "distributing handbills, circulars or other advertisements to ring the door bell, sound the door knocker, or otherwise summon" a home dweller violated the First and Fourteenth Amendemnts.
MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE)
Decided:
Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
LARGENT v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance, which makes it unlawful for any person to solicit orders or to sell books, wares or merchandise with the residence portion of Paris, TX without first filing an application an obtaining a permit, violates the Fourteenth Amendment when the person wants to sell religious material.
JAMISON v. TEXAS
Decided:
Whether a Dallas city ordinance, which prohibits distribution of handbills on the streets, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when the material being distributed is religious in its nature.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
Whether an ordinance requiring reasonable license fee of transient distributors of books or pamphlets for sale on streets, taking no account of whether material is religious or not, is unconstitutional as denying "freedom of speech","press," or "religion".
COX et al. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Decided:
Whether a state law prohibiting a parade or procession on a public street without a special license violates the First Amendment.
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. v. GOBITIS et al.
Decided:
Whether the requirement in the participation of in the pledge of allegiance, which includes the word God, exacted from a child who refuses upon since religious grounds, infringes upon due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL et al. v. CONNECTICUT
Decided:
Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First & Fourteenth Amendment free speech and/or free exercise rights?
SCHNEIDER v. NEW JERSEY
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance mandating a permit to canvass or distribute circulars violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech
HAGUE, MAYOR, et al. v. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance that forbade public assembly in the streets or parks of the city without a permit is an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments freedoms of speech and assembly.
DAVIS v. MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether a city can prohibit an individual from preaching on a citys common without a permit from the mayor.
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether a conviction for bigamy violated the First Amendment rights of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who asserted that faithful practice of his religion required him to engage in polygamy.