Justices Take Door-to-Door Preaching Case

The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether cities can limit door-to-door soliciting by religious or political activists.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Ohio who say they have a free-speech right to take their message door to door, and without first obtaining the city’s approval.

The case, to be argued in February, tests a city’s authority to protect the privacy of homeowners versus the 1st Amendment’s protection for pure speech involving religion or politics.

The outcome may clarify whether cities can regulate those who are not selling products or asking for money.

Three years ago, the tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, adopted a revised ordinance “regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation upon private property.”

City officials said they wanted to protect their mostly elderly homeowners from “scams and frauds.” The ordinance requires all “canvassers, solicitors, peddlers [or] hawkers” to obtain a city permit before they go door to door. In addition, solicitors are forbidden from approaching the homes of residents who have said they want no solicitors.

An earlier version of the ordinance, which later was amended, specifically targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose faith calls for adherents to go from house to house speaking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

On several occasions, the mayor and other city officials had told Witnesses to leave the city.

Lawyers for the group challenged the town’s restrictions as unconstitutional and discriminatory. They said the 1st Amendment forbids the government from regulating religious speakers.

“This is not about solicitation for money. It is pure speech, just talking to people about the Bible,” said Paul D. Polidoro, an attorney for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. “What right does a municipality have to require you to have a permit before you can speak? If they can do that, they could require a priest to have a permit before preaching on Sunday.”

City officials countered that they were not regulating what was said, but where. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the city ordinance. Its judges described the ordinance as “content neutral” regulation, not a ban on “disfavored speech.”

But the justices said Monday they would review the matter in the case of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society vs. Village of Stratton, 00-1737.

During the 1930s and ‘40s, the Supreme Court struck down a series of local ordinances that barred door-to-door soliciting by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

More recently, the court has struggled to define the free-speech rights of the Hare Krishnas, who have solicited money at airports and other public venues.

The justices have agreed that public officials cannot exclude these solicitors entirely, but that they can restrict them to operating in a few selected spots.

To further complicate the matter, the high court in 1995 said the 1st Amendment includes a right to distribute “anonymous” pamphlets or leaflets on political topics.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses said this decision gives them a right to pass out their literature without registering with city officials. The justices agreed to directly consider that issue in the Ohio case.