303 U.S. 444 (*1938*)
Alma Lovell was convicted in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Griffin, Georgia, of the violation of a city ordinance.1 She was sentenced to imprisonment for fifty days in default of the payment of a fine of fifty dollars.2
The Superior Court of the county refused sanction of a petition for review.3 The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.4 The Supreme Court of the State denied an application for certiorari.5 The case comes here on appeal.6
The ordinance provided that distributing circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind within the limits of the City of Griffin without written permission from the City Manager shall be deemed a nuisance and punishable as an offense.7 The Chief of Police and the police force were required and directed to suppress and abate any such nuisance.8
The violation consisted of the distribution without the required permission of a pamphlet and magazine in the nature of religious tracts, setting forth the gospel of the “Kingdom of Jehovah.”9 Lovell did not apply for a permit, as she regarded herself as sent “by Jehovah to do His work” and that such an application would have been “an act of disobedience to His commandment.”10 The City Manager testified that “every one applies to me for a license to distribute literature in this City. None of these people (including defendant) secured a permit from me to distribute literature in the City of Griffin.”11
Upon the trial, with permission of the court, Lovell demurred to the charge and moved to dismiss it upon several grounds, among which was the contention that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in abridging “the freedom of the press” and prohibiting “the free exercise of petitioner’s religion.”12 The Court of Appeals, overruling these objections, sustained the constitutional validity of the ordinance.13
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals?14
This Court has jurisdiction to review a judgment of a state court of appeals when a federal question involving the Constitution of the United States has been raised and decided by the state court.15
Yes. Lovell raised the federal question in her demurrer by quoting the First Amendment protections for religion and press and arguing that the ordinance abridged those rights as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.16 The Court of Appeals overruled the objections and sustained the ordinance.17 This presentation of the federal claim provides the basis for this Court's jurisdiction on appeal.18
This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment.19
Whether the city ordinance abridges the freedom of the press in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?20
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress and by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action, including municipal ordinances.21 An ordinance that subjects the distribution of all literature to prior licensing and censorship is invalid on its face as a restraint upon the freedom of the press.22
Yes. The ordinance in its broad sweep prohibits the distribution of circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind without written permission from the City Manager.23 It applies to the pamphlet and magazine distributed by Lovell.24 The ordinance is not limited to obscene literature or that advocating unlawful conduct, nor is it restricted to time, place, or manner consistent with public order.25
By requiring a permit for any distribution, the ordinance restores the system of license and censorship that the freedom of the press was intended to prevent.26 The liberty of the press embraces pamphlets and leaflets and includes the liberty of circulating as essential to freedom of publication.27 Because the ordinance is void on its face, Lovell was not required to seek a permit before challenging its validity.28
The city ordinance abridges the freedom of the press in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.29
Whether the city ordinance prohibits the free exercise of religion in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?30
The Fourteenth Amendment protects the free exercise of religion from prohibition by state action, including through municipal ordinances.31
No. Lovell contended in her demurrer that the ordinance prohibited the free exercise of her religion by barring distribution of literature about her religion.3233 The Court of Appeals sustained the ordinance without separate treatment of the religion claim in this case.34 The same ordinance's application to religion had been presented in Coleman v. City of Griffin, where the appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.35 In this case the Court decides the matter on the freedom of the press ground.36
The Court does not hold that the ordinance prohibits the free exercise of religion in this proceeding.37