U.S. Supreme Court Says No Permit Required to Solicit for Religious Reasons

MRSC, July 2002

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, by a vote of 8-1, invalidated a Stratton, Ohio ordinance that required canvassers to register and obtain a permit from the mayor's office before going door-to-door promoting any cause (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton). The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it applied to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

The Court noted that it had for years upheld the right for Jehovah's Witnesses to canvas and pamphleteer door-to-door. It also recognized, though, that the rights of canvassers could be balanced against the interests of communities to regulate against the solicitation of money and for the prevention of crime. If the ordinance could have been limited to cover the village's legitimate interests of protecting residents' privacy and preventing crime, arguably it would have been upheld. The ordinance unquestionably applied, Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, "not only to religious causes, but to political activity as well. It would seem to extend to 'residents casually soliciting the votes of neighbors,' or ringing doorbells to enlist support for employing a more efficient garbage collector."

In view of the ordinance's broad sweep against noncommercial canvassers and their causes, their rights as canvassers to anonymity were destroyed. Requiring a permit placed a burden on religious and political speech, and some spontaneous speech was effectively banned. Moreover, the Court found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it was not sufficiently limited to address the village's stated interests. The need for privacy could be addressed by "no solicitation" signs and by residents refusing to engage in conversation with strangers. As to the latter interest, protection against crime, it is unlikely that an ordinance would dissuade a criminal from soliciting door-to-door, and, in any case, the village provided no proof that crime was increased by door-to-door solicitation.