Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Martin v. City of Struthers

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree SpeechFree PressDoor-to-door distribution of literatureFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentfree speechfree press

Facts

Appellant, a Jehovah's Witness, went from home to home in an orderly and conventional manner, knocking on doors and ringing doorbells to distribute leaflets advertising a religious meeting. She delivered a leaflet to a householder and was fined $10 under a Struthers ordinance forbidding distributors of handbills, circulars, or other advertisements from summoning occupants to the door to receive such materials. She admitted knocking for that purpose but argued that the ordinance, as construed and applied, violated the freedoms of press and religion secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The ordinance regulated only the distribution of literature and applied even when a householder would have been glad to receive it.

Issue

May a city, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make it unlawful for a person distributing literature to ring a doorbell or otherwise summon a resident to the door to receive the material? More specifically, can the city broadly replace each individual householder's decision whether to receive such communications with a community-wide criminal prohibition?

Rule

The freedom of speech and press includes the right to distribute literature and necessarily protects the right to receive it. Although a community may impose reasonable police and health regulations on the time, place, and manner of distribution, it may not enforce a stringent prohibition that broadly suppresses door-to-door distribution of literature by substituting the community's judgment for the householder's own choice; instead, regulation may punish calls made contrary to a previously expressed wish of the occupant and may use identification measures to deter criminal abuse.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Dayton, Ohio, enacts an ordinance making it a misdemeanor for any person distributing flyers, pamphlets, or circulars to ring a doorbell or knock on a residence for the purpose of handing over the material. The ordinance applies citywide, even if the occupant welcomes such visits.

If challenged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, how is a court most likely to rule?

Explanation. The majority held that freedom of speech and press includes the right to distribute literature and protects the right to receive it. A city may not impose a stringent, citywide prohibition on summoning residents to receive literature when that ban criminalizes even welcome communications and substitutes community judgment for the individual householder's decision. The availability of other channels does not save such a blanket suppression of this important method of communication.