Follett v. Town of McCormick
Headline: Local evangelists and religious book distributors win as Court strikes down flat license tax, blocking towns from charging fixed fees for preaching and distributing religious literature within their communities.
Holding: The Court held that imposing a flat license tax on a resident evangelist for selling or distributing religious books is unconstitutional because it conditions free exercise of religion on payment, and it reversed the conviction.
- Blocks flat license fees on preaching and distributing religious books in local communities.
- Leaves general taxes on income and property intact for religious workers.
- Reverses convictions under local seller-license ordinances for religious distribution.
Summary
Background
The case involves a Jehovah's Witness minister who lived in McCormick, South Carolina, and went door to door distributing religious books. The town ordinance required a flat license for agents selling books ($1 per day or $15 per year). He earned his living from money received for the books, was convicted for lacking a license, and state courts upheld that conviction before the appeal reached the Court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether a flat license tax applied to someone who earns a living by preaching and distributing religious literature in his own town is constitutional. Relying on earlier rulings, the majority accepted that the activity was religious and held that imposing a flat license fee on the exercise of religion improperly conditions that freedom on payment. The Court explained such a tax restrains and can suppress religious exercise, and it reversed the conviction.
Real world impact
The decision protects preachers and religious distributors from nondiscriminatory but fixed license fees that would be a condition on preaching or handing out religious books in their community. The opinion makes clear this exemption does not free religious workers from ordinary taxes like income or property taxes. The ruling prevents towns from using flat seller-license charges to restrict religious leafleting or canvassing.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Reed and Murphy agreed with the result; Reed noted prior opinions and saw no difference between itinerant and resident distributors. A separate dissent warned the decision forces governments to subsidize religion, could extend immunity to publishers, and questioned the decision’s wider implications for taxation and the press.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?