Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Poulos v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court of the United States · 1953 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFree ExerciseLicensing of Public MeetingsPublic ParksFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

Facts

Poulos, a Jehovah's Witness, applied for permission to conduct religious services in Goodwin Park on two dates, offered to pay proper fees, and complied with the procedural requirements for obtaining permission. The Portsmouth City Council refused the license, and the Superior Court later found that refusal arbitrary and unreasonable. Despite the refusal, Poulos held the planned services and was arrested and convicted under the ordinance requiring a license for open-air public meetings on grounds abutting a public street or way. New Hampshire courts held that although the refusal was wrongful, the ordinance was valid and Poulos should have sought judicial relief rather than speak without a license.

Issue

May a city constitutionally require a license before religious services are conducted in a public park under a licensing system authoritatively limited to uniform and nondiscriminatory administration? If such a valid license is arbitrarily refused, may the speaker nevertheless be convicted for speaking without a license when state law requires him to seek judicial correction of the wrongful refusal rather than proceed without the permit?

Rule

A licensing requirement for public meetings in public parks does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when, as construed by the state court, it mandates uniform, consistent, and nondiscriminatory administration and does not vest officials with discretion to control speech. When such a valid law is wrongfully administered by an unlawful refusal of a permit, the Constitution does not require that the applicant be allowed to ignore the law; the state may require him to pursue appropriate judicial remedies to compel issuance, and conviction for acting without the required license may stand.

🔒

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 of Toledo requires a permit before any open-air meeting may be held in a small public square bordering a downtown street. The Ohio Supreme Court has authoritatively construed the ordinance to require uniform, consistent, and nondiscriminatory issuance based only on scheduling, traffic flow, and public convenience, leaving officials no discretion over content. After Maya Ortiz applies properly for a Saturday prayer service and is denied because council members dislike her group, she holds the event anyway and is prosecuted for speaking without a permit.

Under the governing doctrine, is Maya's conviction most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority upheld punishment where the underlying licensing law was valid as construed to require uniform, nondiscriminatory, ministerial administration and left no discretion to suppress speech. It distinguished unconstitutional prior-restraint cases because the defect here was wrongful administration of a valid law, not invalidity of the law itself. Where state judicial remedies exist to compel issuance, the applicant may be required to pursue them rather than proceed without a permit. (Derived from Poulos v. New Hampshire (n.d.).)