Kunz v. New York
Docket: 50
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; January 15, 1951; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
New York City enacted an ordinance requiring a permit from the police commissioner for public worship meetings on the streets. Carl Jacob Kunz, an ordained Baptist minister, was fined $10 for holding such a meeting without a permit, leading to an upheld conviction by lower courts. Kunz had previously obtained a permit in 1946, which was revoked after he was accused of ridiculing other religious beliefs, despite the ordinance lacking explicit grounds for revocation. He did not contest this revocation and applied for new permits in 1947 and 1948, both of which were disapproved without explanation. His conviction stemmed from speaking without a permit in 1948. The courts justified the disapproval based on the prior revocation, highlighting a lack of specified reasons in the ordinance for permit denial. The ordinance effectively allowed the police commissioner to exercise discretion over citizens' rights to speak on religious matters, which the Court found to constitute a prior restraint on First Amendment rights. Citing precedent, the Court asserted that public streets are traditionally used for assembly and expression, and condemned licensing systems that grant broad discretionary power to administrative officials for permit issuance. The Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut ordinance requiring a license for soliciting money for religious causes in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Justice Roberts stated that conditioning solicitation on state-issued licenses imposes an unconstitutional burden on religious liberty protected by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that prior restraints on free speech, such as the requirement for a permit to use a loudspeaker without clear standards, are unconstitutional. It noted that appropriate public remedies exist for any disorder caused by religious meetings, but the focus here was on suppression rather than punishment. The ordinance was deemed unconstitutional as it allowed arbitrary control over religious speech without set guidelines. The Court also referenced a New York City Administrative Code section prohibiting certain religious activities without a permit, highlighting that the New York Court of Appeals had previously ruled that all eligible permit requests must be granted. The discussion included related cases establishing the protection of free speech in religious contexts. The decision was reversed, with Justices Black and Frankfurter concurring in the result.