| Fowler v. Rhode Island | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued February 3, 1953 Decided March 9, 1953 | |
| Full case name | Fowler v. Rhode Island |
| Citations | 345 U.S. 67 (more)
|
| Holding | |
| A municipal ordinance which is so construed and applied as to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Frankfurter, Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment,Fourteenth Amendment | |
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a municipal ordinance which was used to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there with impunity, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, had an ordinance which reads as follows:
Jehovah's Witnesses assembled in Slater Park of Pawtucket for a meeting which at the trial was conceded to be religious in character. About 400 people attended, 150 being Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler, a Jehovah's Witness minister, was invited to give a talk before the Pawtucket congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Fowler accepted the invitation and addressed the meeting in the park over two loud-speakers. It was a quiet, orderly meeting with no disturbances or breaches of the peace whatsoever.
Fowler had been talking only a few minutes when he was arrested by the police and charged with violating the ordinance set forth above. He was tried and found guilty over objections that the ordinance as so construed and applied violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. He was fined $5.
Fowler's conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. 80 R.I., 91 A. 2d 27. Also see Fowler v. State, 79 R. I. 16, 83 A. 2d 67, an earlier opinion answering certified questions and holding the ordinance valid.
![[icon]](https://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} |
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
|
|
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
|
|
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
|
|
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
|
|
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008)
|
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
