Solicitor Permits Ruled Unlawful

City officials cannot require missionaries, politicians and neighborhood activists to obtain a permit before going door to door to spread their message, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

On an 8-1 vote, the court said the right to free speech trumps the government’s desire to shield the privacy of homeowners, at least when the solicitors are not selling a product.

“It is offensive--not only the values protected by the 1st Amendment, but the very notion of a free society--that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. It would be a “dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition” to allow the permit requirement to stand, he said.

In the 1940s, the Supreme Court struck down a series of ordinances that were targeted at Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of the measures barred soliciting entirely. Others imposed a tax on those who wanted to go door to door.

Monday’s ruling goes a step further, saying the permit requirement itself violates the 1st Amendment.

The ruling represents another victory for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their New York-based lawyers challenged an ordinance adopted by the tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, population 278.

The case had been closely watched by lawyers for municipalities around the nation. Concerned that some solicitors may be con artists or even murderers, they hoped the high court would allow more leeway to limit solicitors.

In his lone dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cited the case of two Dartmouth College professors who were killed by two teenagers who had gone door to door in Hanover, N.H., claiming to be taking a survey but apparently intending to steal bank debit cards. Requiring permits would give residents “a degree of accountability and safety” they would otherwise not have, he said.

In his opinion, Stevens stressed that Stratton’s ordinance had to be struck down because it applied literally to trick-or-treaters on Halloween, or even neighbors who go next door to ask to borrow an egg.

He left open the possibility that a permit requirement could stand if it was limited to commercial solicitors or targeted at stopping crime or fraud.

The case is the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society vs. Village of Stratton, 00-1737.

The ruling shows again that the free speech principle enjoys broad support on the high court, and it brings together its liberal and conservative factions.

Last month, the justices struck down a federal law that made “virtual pornography” a crime, and they earlier voided a federal measure intended to prohibit pornography. These decisions were applauded mostly by liberals.

But the justices have also struck down bans on advertising of products such as cigarettes, beer and casinos, rulings that were cheered more by conservatives.

One other major free speech case is still pending. It will decide whether candidates for state judgeships have a right to speak out on controversial issues that might come before the courts.