Document: 366 U.S. 599 81 S.Ct. 1144 6 L.Ed.2d 563 Abraham BRAUNFELD et al., Appellants,v.Albert N. BROWN, Commissioner of Police the City Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, al. No. 67. Argued Dec. 8, 1960. Decided May 29, 1961. Mr. Theodore R. Mann, Pa., for appellants. David Berger, appellees. Chief Justice WARREN announced judgment Court and an opinion in which BLACK, CLARK, WHITTAKER concur. 1 This case concerns constitutional validity application to appellants Pennsylvania criminal statute,1 enacted 1959, proscribes Sunday retail sale certain enumerated commodities. Among questions presented are whether statute is a law respecting establishment religion violates equal protection. Since both these questions, reference this very statute, have already been answered negative, Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley, 582, 1135, 551, since present nothing new regarding them, they need not be considered here. Thus only question consideration interferes with free exercise appellants' religion. 2 Appellants merchants Philadelphia who engage clothing home furnishings within proscription issue. Each member Orthodox Jewish faith, requires closing their places business total abstention all manner work nightfall each Friday until Saturday. They instituted suit court below seeking permanent injunction against enforcement 1959 statute. Their complaint, as amended, alleged that had previously kept open on Sunday; done substantial amount Sunday, compensating somewhat Saturday; will result impairing ability earn livelihood render appellant Braunfeld unable continue his business, thereby losing capital investment; unconstitutional reasons stated above. 3 A three-judge was properly convened it dismissed complaint authority Harrison case. 184 F.Supp. 352. On appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, U.S.C.A. we noted probable jurisdiction, 362 987, 80 1078, 4 1020. contend them prohibit because, due statute's compulsion close suffer economic loss, benefit non-Sabbatarian competitors, if also Sabbath observance by businesses either compel give up observance, basic tenet or put at serious disadvantage adhere Sabbath. assert operate so hinder faith gaining adherents. And corollary arguments impeded, being subjected discriminatory treatment State. 5 In McGowan Maryland, pages 437—440, page 1111, significance has attributed development religious freedom Virginia determining scope First Amendment's We observed when passed its Declaration Rights 1776, providing 'all men equally entitled religion,' repealed laws any way penalized 'maintaining opinions matters religion, forbearing repair church, exercising mode worship whatsoever.' But retained prohibiting labor. took cognizance, McGowan, evolution Closing Laws wholly sanctions legislation concerned day community tranquillity, respite recreation, atmosphere one calm relaxation rather than commercialism, during other six days week. reviewed still growing state preoccupation improving health, safety, morals general well-being our citizens. 7 Concededly, persons wish burdened economically State's rest mandate; point out refrain Saturday well. Our inquiry then whether, circumstances, Fourteenth Amendments forbid Law 8 Certain aspects cannot, way, restricted federal legislation. Compulsion acceptance creed practice form strictly forbidden. The hold beliefs absolute. Cantwell State Connecticut, 310 296, 303, 60 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Reynolds United States, 98 145, 166, 25 244. Thus, West Board Education Barnette, 319 624, 63 1178, 87 1628, held action compelling school children salute flag, pain expulsion public shool, contrary applied those students whose forbade saluting flag. bar; before us does make holding belief opinion, nor force anyone embrace say believe anything conflict tenets. 9 However, act, even accord one's convictions, totally legislative restrictions. supra, 303—304, 306, 903—904. As pointed 164, power over mere forbidden but may reach people's actions found violation important social duties subversive good order, demanded articulated Thomas Jefferson he said: 10 'Believing you matter lies solely between man God, owes account none worship, powers government only, opinions, I contemplate sovereign reverence act whole American people declared legislature should 'make no thereof,' thus building wall separation church Adhering expression supreme nation behalf rights conscience, shall see sincere satisfaction progress sentiments tend restore natural rights, convinced right opposition duties.' (Emphasis added.) Works 113.2 11 And, Barnette case, careful 'The asserted appellees bring into collision individual. It such conflicts most frequently require intervention determine where end another begin. * compulsory flag pledge affirmation attitude mind.' 630, 633, 1181. 12 upheld polygamy conviction Mormon despite fact accepted doctrine imposed upon male members duty polygamy. Prince Commonwealth Massachusetts, 321 158, 64 438, 88 645, making crime girl eighteen years age sell newspapers, periodicals merchandise child Jehovah's Witnesses believed her perform work. 13 that, two cases just mentioned, practices themselves conflicted interest. cases, accommodation particularly delicate task, id., 165, 441, because resolution favor results choice individual abandoning principle facing prosecution. 14 But, again, bar unlawful appellants; simply regulates secular activity and, appellants, operates more expensive. Furthermore, law's effect inconvenience necessary Sunday.3 faced forsaking subjecting Fully recognizing alternatives others similarly situated—retaining occupations incurring engaging some commercial call labor—may well financial sacrifice order observe beliefs, option different attempts itself unlawful. 15 To strike down, without critical scrutiny, imposes indirect burden i.e., itself, would radically restrict operating latitude legislature. Statutes tax income limit deducted contributions impose citizen him donate greater church; statutes courts closed similar trial lawyer weekday. list nature nearly limitless. 16 Needless say, entering area freedom, must fully cognizant particular protection Constitution accorded it. Abhorrence persecution intolerance part heritage. cosmopolitan made almost every conceivable preference. These denominations number three hundred. Year Book Churches 1958, 257 seq. Consequently, cannot expected, much less required, legislators enact regulating conduct sects special various religions. do absolute test protected Amendment. 17 Of course, unassailable gross oversimplification. If purpose impede religions discriminate invidiously religions, constitutionally invalid though characterized indirect. enacting power, advance goals, valid unless accomplish means burden. See 304—305, 903—904.4 18 444—445, 1115, find provide weekly labor same time, set week apart rest, repose, recreation tranquillity—a hectic tempo everyday existence ceases pleasant created, family opportunity spend enjoy together, visit friends relatives available working days, laborer best regenerate himself. true increasing concern welfare 19 Also, examined several suggested alternative argued might goals remotely incidentally affecting freedom. 450—452, 1118—1119. there bringing about rest. examine again 20 yet disposal unobjectionable. cut exception who, conviction, Sunday. By regulation, contend, disadvantages system removed interest having satisfied. 21 States exemption,5 wiser solution problem. wisdom limitation. reason experience teach permit exemption undermine goal possible, eliminates noise activity. Although dispositive issue, problems difficult police violations were occurring. 22 Additional regulation sort. allow keep advantage competitors remain day;6 cause Sunday-observers complain discriminated against. With competitive existing, could temptation some, convictions what formerly least profitable day. state-conducted sincerity individual's beliefs,7 run afoul spirit guarantees. Finally, disruption minimum, exempted employers probably hire employees qualified own beliefs,8 feel opposed policy discrimination hiring.9 For reasons, invalid, face applied. 23 HARLAN concurs judgment. BRENNAN STEWART concur disposition claims Establishment Clause Equal Protection Clause. FRANKFURTER rejected claim Free Exercise separate opinion. 24 Accordingly, decision affirmed. Affirmed. 26 (For FRANKFURTER, joined HARLAN, 459, 1153.) 27 dissenting DOUGLAS, 561, 1218.). BRENNAN, concurring dissenting. 29 agree THE CHIEF JUSTICE merit equal-protection claims. dissent, however, prohibited 30 demonstrated surcease worldly labor, forth considerations convenience led fix time respite. approach differently, view individuals liberty is—concededly—curtailed enactments. values Amendment, embodied Fourteenth, look primarily towards preservation personal liberty, fulfillment collective goals. 31 small merchants, faithful practitioners faith. allege—and allegation taken true, comes motion dismiss complaint—that '* (by refraining labor) Jew.' night busy times; Sabbath, all, lost opening 'Each plaintiffs,' continues, 'does Sundays, plaintiffs greatly impaired Sundays.' Consequences drastic alleged: 'Plaintiff, Braunfeld, stay lose investment.' words, issue case—and understand otherwise—is today holds may. believing prohibits 32 first resolved, broader facts That appropriate standard adjudication assertedly limitation applies force, absorbed through definite words confined narrow challenged rationally related legitimate end. Nor decided finding important, justifiable. canon clearly Jackson, speaking 1943, 639, 1186, 1628: 33 'In weighing parties distinguish process clause Amendment instrument transmitting principles sake. collides First, involved. Much vagueness disappears specific prohibitions become standard. regulate, example, utility include, far concerned, restrictions 'rational basis' adopting. freedoms speech press, assembly, infringed slender grounds. susceptible restriction prevent grave immediate danger interests lawfully protect. note while bears directly limiting finally govern case.' 34 exacting consistently clauses specifically dealing press. freedom—the strange be, foreign creeds—has classically highest society. See, e.g., Murdock 105, 115, 870, 876, 1292; Jones Opelika, 103, 890, 1290; Martin Struthers, 141, 862, 1313; Follett Town McCormick, 1944, 573, 717, 938; Marsh Alabama, 1946, 326 501, 510, 66 276, 280, 90 265. Even concentrated attack high seemingly admitted principle, deploring incidental phraseology. Kovacs Cooper, 1949, 336 77, 89, 95—96, 69 448, 454, 458, 93 513 (concurring opinion); cf. Ullmann 1956, 350 422, 76 497, 100 511. honored place hierarchy, long ago argument counsel Permoli Municipality New Orleans, 1845, How. 589, 600, 739, foreshadowed prescient footnote Carolene Products Co., 1938, 304 144, 152, 58 778, 783, 82 1234, 4, now settled. Or appeared today. seems deferential nod past, justify encroachments practice, cloaked guise nonreligious purpose. 35 Admittedly, overt repugnant belief, outright practices, did 1878, 244, cited Court. is, simultaneously trade, hampered disadvantage. Jew compete effectively Sunday-observing fellow tradesmen. clog state-imposed Judaism, exactly levied literature. yet, tax, excise license fee, supra. All Court, read concedes. 36 What, then, impels worship? What overbalancing weighty scale justifies substantial, indirect, freedom? desire stamp deeply abhorred society, polygamy, Reynolds, custom resting universally honored, amply shown. traditional children, reasoning autonomous adults. seeing everyone rests week, take defend follow route granting 37 suppose, Sundays little noisier, task prosecutor difficult. majority—21—of regulations exemptions kind.1 told significantly burdened, Pennsylvania's. England, written constitution, influenced fairness, activities.2 conjures difficulties seem me fanciful real. Non-Sunday observers get unfair advantage, said. contention draft conscientious objectors (another example technique) observation 'its unsoundness too apparent require' discussion. Selective Draft Cases (Arver States) 1918, 245 366, 390, 38 159, 62 349. However widespread legally baseless, reliance withstand claim. official unconstitutional. indicated otherwise Ballard, 322 78, 882, 1148. Such infringement requirement 420, 1101, 393, plaintiff show good-faith acquires standing Free-Exercise Court's mention problem antidiscrimination chimerical. Most hiring basis bona fide occupational qualification.3 happens, moreover, Pennsylvania's provision.4 fine, my view, exalted administrative level enough disadvantageous. ground forgets, think, warning uttered congressional discussion itself: conscience are, nature, peculiar delicacy, bear gentlest touch governmental hand *.'5 39 reverse remand allegations, limited free-exercise-of-religion 40 STEWART, 41 substantially written. compels choose survival. cruel choice. think can demand. something swept rug forgotten enforced togetherness. impact grossly Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. (1960 Cum.Supp.) 4699.10 provides: 'Selling property 'Whoever engages selling, sells offers sale, day, retail, wearing apparel, accessories, furniture, housewares, home, office furnishings, household, appliances, hardware, tools, paints, lumber supply materials, jewelry, silverware, watches, clocks, luggage, musical instruments recordings, toys, excluding novelties souvenirs, shall, thereof summary proceeding offense, sentenced pay fine exceeding hundred dollars ($100), second subsequent offense committed year after ($200) undergo imprisonment thirty default thereof. offer constitute offense. 'Information charging section seventy-two hours commission thereafter.' Oliver Ellsworth, Constitutional Convention later Justice, wrote: 'But deny civil right, interfere punish immoralities impieties; evil detriment.' Written Connecticut Courant, 17, 1787, quoted Stokes, Church 535. Cardozo, Brandeis Stone, Hamilton Regents University, 293 245, 265—268, 55 197, 205 206, 79 343. like 1292, 938, struck down municipal ordinances which, application, required colporteurs condition pursuit activities interest, obtaining revenue, easily satisfied imposing sources. E.g., Ind.Ann.Stat. 10—4301. 'If (the storekeeper) opens Saturday, fierce competition indeed Christian shopkeepers, whereas supposing closes absolutely shopkeepers all.' 311 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 492. 'It orthodox allowed trade o'clock monopoly. tremendous advantage. many districts trader shop district.' 101 Lords, 430. Sabbatarians, qualify, file notice prosecuting attorney. Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. 53—303. Va.Code Ann., 18.1—359. 43 §§ 951 963. Conn.Gen.Stat., 1958 rev., 53—303; Fla.Laws c. 59 1650, 2; Ill.Rev.Stat., 38, 549; Burns' Ind.Ann.Stat., 1956 repl., 10—4301; Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann., 21—953; Ky.Rev.Stat., 436.160(2); Me.Rev.Stat., 1954, 134, 44; Mass.Gen.Laws 136, 6; Mich.Stat.Ann., 1957 18.855, 18.122, 9.2702, Comp.Laws Supp.1956, 435.252; 1948, 338.682, 435.7; Mo.Rev.Stat., 563.700; Neb.Rev.Stat., 28—940; N.J.Stat.Ann., 1953, 2A:171—4; McKinney's N.Y.Laws, Penal Law, 2144; N.D.Rev.Code, 12—2117; NDCC 12—21—17; Page's Ohio Rev.Code 3773.24; Okla.Stat.Ann., Tit. 21, 909; R.I.Gen.Laws, 11—40—4; S.D.Code, 1939, 13.1710; Vernon's Ann.Tex.Pen.Code art. 284; Va.Code, 1950, 18.1—359; Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, 9.76.020; W.Va.Code 1955, 61, Art. 6073. Cf. Wis.Stat.Ann., 301.33. Shops Act, Geo. VI, 28, 53. 151B, par. 1. 955. Annals Cong. 730 (remarks Representative Daniel Carroll August 15, 1789).

Category: 2