310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, members of a group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and claiming to be ordained ministers, were arrested in New Haven, Connecticut, and each was charged by information in five counts, with statutory and common law offenses.1 After trial in the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County each of them was convicted on the third count, which charged a violation of § 6294 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, and on the fifth count, which charged commission of the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace. On appeal to the Supreme Court the conviction of all three on the third count was affirmed. The conviction of Jesse Cantwell, on the fifth count, was also affirmed, but the conviction of Newton and Russell on that count was reversed and a new trial ordered as to them.2
On the day of their arrest the appellants were engaged in going singly from house to house on Cassius Street in New Haven. They were individually equipped with a bag containing books and pamphlets on religious subjects, a portable phonograph and a set of records, each of which, when played, introduced, and was a description of, one of the books. Each appellant asked the person who responded to his call for permission to play one of the records. If permission was granted he asked the person to buy the book described and, upon refusal, he solicited such contribution towards the publication of the pamphlets as the listener was willing to make. If a contribution was received a pamphlet was delivered upon condition that it would be read.3 Cassius Street is in a thickly populated neighborhood, where about ninety per cent of the residents are Roman Catholics. A phonograph record, describing a book entitled “Enemies,” included an attack on the Catholic religion. None of the persons interviewed were members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.4
The statute under which the appellants were charged provides that no person shall solicit money, services, subscriptions or any valuable thing for any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause, from other than a member of the organization for whose benefit such person is soliciting or within the county in which such person or organization is located unless such cause shall have been approved by the secretary of the public welfare council. Upon application of any person in behalf of such cause, the secretary shall determine whether such cause is a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy and conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity, and, if he shall so find, shall approve the same and issue to the authority in charge a certificate to that effect.5 The facts which were held to support the conviction of Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count were that he stopped two men in the street, asked, and received, permission to play a phonograph record, and played the record “Enemies,” which attacked the religion and church of the two men, who were Catholics. Both were incensed by the contents of the record and were tempted to strike Cantwell unless he went away. On being told to be on his way he left their presence. There was no evidence that he was personally offensive or entered into any argument with those he interviewed.6
By demurrers to the information, by requests for rulings of law at the trial, and by their assignments of error in the State Supreme Court, the appellants pressed the contention that the statute under which the third count was drawn was offensive to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because, on its face and as construed and applied, it denied them freedom of speech and prohibited their free exercise of religion. In like manner they made the point that they could not be found guilty on the fifth count, without violation of the Amendment.7 We have jurisdiction on appeal from the judgments on the third count, as there was drawn in question the validity of a state statute under the Federal Constitution, and the decision was in favor of validity. Since the conviction on the fifth count was not based upon a statute, but presents a substantial question under the Federal Constitution, we granted the writ of certiorari in respect of it.8
Whether § 6294 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment?9
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment's protections, embracing both freedom to believe and freedom to act in religious matters, though conduct remains subject to regulation that does not unduly infringe protected freedoms.10 A statute requiring prior state approval of a cause as religious before solicitation is permitted imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint amounting to censorship of religion.11
Yes.
The appellants were Newton Cantwell and his two sons who were Jehovah's Witnesses going from house to house on Cassius Street in New Haven.12 They carried bags with religious books and pamphlets along with a portable phonograph and records that described the books.13
Cassius Street was a thickly populated area with mostly Roman Catholic residents.14 The record played attacked the Catholic religion.15 The statute mandates that the secretary determine whether the cause is religious and issue a certificate only if it is found to be so.16
The requirement of prior state approval for the religious nature of the cause amounts to a censorship that unduly infringes on the free exercise of religion protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.17
The statute as construed and applied deprives the appellants of liberty without due process of law.18
Whether the conviction of Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count for the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace violates the Fourteenth Amendment?19
The Fourteenth Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech from state abridgment.20 Convictions under a general common law breach of the peace concept must yield when the conduct presents no clear and present danger and the offense is applied without a narrowly drawn statute defining specific prohibited conduct.21
Yes. Jesse Cantwell stopped two men in the street, obtained permission to play the phonograph record Enemies which attacked the Catholic religion, and left promptly when told to go without engaging in any personal abuse or argument.22 Although the listeners were incensed and felt tempted to strike him, Cantwell's deportment was not noisy or offensive, no crowd formed, and traffic was not impeded.23 The conviction rested on a broad common law concept rather than a narrowly drawn statute targeting clear and present dangers, thereby unduly suppressing protected religious communication under the Fourteenth Amendment.24
The conviction of Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count violates the Fourteenth Amendment and must be set aside.25