Court: Supreme Court of the United States; May 29, 1961; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Chief Justice Warren announced the judgment of the Court, joined by Justices Black, Clark, and Whittaker, regarding the Pennsylvania statute from 1959 that bans Sunday retail sales of certain goods. The Court previously ruled that the statute does not violate the establishment of religion or equal protection, and since appellants did not present new arguments on these points, they were not reconsidered. The central issue is whether the statute infringes on the free exercise of the appellants' religion. The appellants, Orthodox Jewish merchants in Philadelphia, argue that the statute's requirement to close on Sunday, while they already close on Saturday for Sabbath observance, causes significant economic hardship, potentially forcing them to abandon their religious practices or placing them at a competitive disadvantage. They claim this discrimination violates their religious rights. The Court referenced McGowan v. Maryland to highlight the historical context of religious freedom and noted the evolution of Sunday Closing Laws from their religious origins to their modern purpose of promoting community tranquility.
The state has a vested interest in enhancing the health, safety, morals, and overall well-being of its citizens, which may economically burden individuals, including appellants who wish to work on Sundays and those whose religious beliefs require them to refrain from work on Saturdays. The central issue is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the enforcement of the Sunday Closing Law against these appellants. While certain religious practices cannot be restricted by law, the freedom to hold religious beliefs is absolute, as established in cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut and Reynolds v. United States. However, the freedom to act in accordance with religious beliefs is not entirely free from legislative restrictions, particularly when such actions violate important social duties or disrupt public order. Historical views by Thomas Jefferson emphasize that legislative powers should only regulate actions, not opinions, reinforcing the separation of church and state. In the Barnette case, the Court noted that the freedom of the appellees did not conflict with the rights of others, which often necessitates state intervention. In contrast, the Court upheld the convictions in Reynolds for polygamy and in Prince v. Massachusetts for a minor selling newspapers, demonstrating that religious obligations can be overridden by societal laws aimed at maintaining order.
Religious practices may conflict with public interest, making accommodation between religious actions and state authority complex. In the cases referenced, choosing state resolution could force individuals to abandon their religious principles or face criminal prosecution. However, the current statute does not criminalize any religious practices of the appellants; it merely regulates secular activities, resulting in increased costs for practicing their beliefs. This regulation does not inconvenience all members of the Orthodox Jewish faith, only those who feel compelled to work on Sundays. Moreover, the alternatives available to these individuals—maintaining their jobs with economic disadvantages or pursuing different activities that do not conflict with their religious observance—do not present as severe a dilemma as outright criminalization of their practices.
Striking down legislation that imposes indirect burdens on religious practice without thorough scrutiny could unduly limit legislative authority. Examples of such indirect burdens include taxes affecting religious donations and laws requiring courts to close on certain days. While the First Amendment protects religious freedoms, it is impractical to expect legislation to avoid imposing economic disadvantages on certain religious groups due to their specific practices. Legislation that inadvertently burdens religious observance does not automatically violate constitutional protections. However, if the intent or outcome of a law is to hinder religious observance or discriminate among religions, it would be deemed unconstitutional. Valid statutes must pursue state goals while allowing for indirect burdens on religious observance unless less burdensome alternatives are available.
A state possesses the authority to designate a specific day of the week for rest and recreation, which fosters family and community time, as well as individual rejuvenation. While alternatives to achieve a secular day of rest without infringing on religious freedoms were considered in McGowan v. Maryland, the court concluded that these alternatives might not effectively provide a universal day of rest. Appellants proposed an exception to Sunday labor restrictions for individuals observing a different rest day due to religious convictions, arguing this would alleviate economic disadvantages and align with the state’s interest in promoting rest. However, the court noted several concerns: allowing such exemptions could undermine the objective of a unified day of rest, complicate enforcement efforts, create competitive disparities between businesses, and potentially lead to intrusive inquiries into individuals' religious beliefs. Furthermore, employing individuals who share the same religious exemption could conflict with anti-discrimination policies. Consequently, the court upheld the Pennsylvania statute as valid, with various justices concurring on different constitutional grounds, affirming the decision.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter's opinion, joined by Mr. Justice Harlan, is referenced, along with a dissent from Mr. Justice Douglas. Pennsylvania law (18 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. 1960 Cum. Supp. 4699.10) prohibits the sale of certain personal property on Sundays, imposing fines of up to $100 for the first offense and up to $200 or 30 days' imprisonment for subsequent offenses within a year. Each sale constitutes a separate violation, and charges must be filed within 72 hours. Historical context includes a statement by Oliver Ellsworth regarding the civil power's right to regulate religious practices to prevent immorality. The document references cases where the Court invalidated ordinances requiring religious individuals to pay license taxes, noting that non-religious entities could satisfy the state's revenue needs instead. The competitive dynamics are highlighted, with Orthodox Jewish shopkeepers facing competition on Saturdays but potentially benefiting from a lack of competition on Sundays, where they may operate until 2 PM, thus gaining a market advantage. Connecticut's exemption for Sabbatarians requires a formal notice of religious belief to qualify.
