McGowan v. Maryland
The Supreme Court upheld Maryland's Sunday closing law, ruling that even though the rule started centuries ago as a religious requirement, its modern version serves a secular purpose: giving people a shared day of rest.
The decision meant states could keep enforcing 'blue laws' that closed most stores on Sunday, so long as the laws' current text and effect were aimed at rest and recreation rather than promoting worship.
“Sunday is a day apart from all others. The cause is irrelevant; the fact exists.”
Explaining why Sunday's special status as a rest day matters regardless of its religious origins.
How it got here: A Maryland trial court convicted the employees and fined them; the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, and the employees appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Seven employees of a discount department store in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, were charged with selling a loose-leaf binder, floor wax, a stapler and staples, and a toy submarine on a Sunday, violating Maryland's Sunday retail sales ban. Maryland's Sunday laws dated back to a 1649 colonial statute and contained many exceptions for specific goods, counties, and recreational activities.
The question before the Court
Could Maryland punish store employees for selling ordinary goods on Sunday without that law counting as government support for religion?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Maryland's Sunday closing law did not amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, even though its earliest versions were openly religious. The Court found that, over centuries, the law's language and its many exceptions had evolved to serve a secular purpose: giving citizens a uniform day of rest, recreation, and family time, regardless of anyone's faith.
Because the statute's current text and practical effect showed this secular goal rather than an intent to promote worship, and because the employees had not shown the law actually pressured anyone toward religious observance, the Court held the law survived the Establishment Clause challenge. The Court also rejected separate claims that the law's many commercial exceptions were arbitrary, finding they were reasonably tied to public convenience and health.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Retailers and their employees across the country who wanted to sell goods on Sundays remained subject to state closing laws, while businesses selling exempted items like gas, food, and drugs kept a competitive advantage. The ruling gave state legislatures continued room to regulate Sunday commerce however they saw fit, as long as they could point to a nonreligious justification.
What changes now
The decision is a final merits ruling, so Maryland's Sunday closing law and similar laws in other states remained enforceable. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the specific statute before it, leaving open whether other Sunday laws with more explicit religious language or effects might later be found unconstitutional. The Court decided three companion Sunday-closing cases the same day.
What this does not decide
The Court said it was deciding only the constitutionality of the specific section under which these employees were convicted, not whether all Sunday legislation is valid. It left open the possibility that a Sunday law shown—by its text, history, or actual effect—to be aimed at aiding religion could still violate the Establishment Clause.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Frankfurter
Frankfurter agreed with the result but reached it independently of the majority's reliance on Everson v. Board of Education, instead conducting his own extensive historical survey of Sunday laws in England and the American colonies. He argued that Sunday laws have long served overlapping religious and secular purposes and that courts should uphold them once a substantial secular purpose is shown, regardless of any residual religious coloring. He also would have remanded a companion case for further factual development on arbitrariness.
Dissent — Justice Douglas
“The question is whether a State can impose criminal sanctions on those who, unlike the Christian majority that makes up our society, worship on a different day or do not share the religious scruples of the majority.”Framing the dissent's core objection that Sunday laws burden religious minorities.
Douglas argued the real question was not whether a day of rest is permissible but whether the State could criminally punish people for doing innocent things on the day the Christian majority reveres. He contended Sunday laws are inescapably rooted in the Fourth Commandment and place an unconstitutional burden on people who do not share the majority's religious practices, comparing it to hypothetical laws favoring Jewish or Muslim sabbaths. He would have struck down the laws as applied to the complaining parties.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied ordinary rational-basis review to the equal protection claim, meaning Maryland's classifications had to be upheld unless they rested on grounds wholly unrelated to any legitimate state goal.
- Reviewing the many exceptions for gasoline, food, drugs, and recreational activities, the Court found each could reasonably be tied to public health or the enjoyment of a day of rest, so the law was not arbitrary.
- Turning to the religion claims, the Court first held that the employees lacked standing to raise a free exercise challenge because they never alleged the law burdened their own religious beliefs.
- The Court then addressed the establishment clause claim, tracing the history of Sunday laws from clearly religious colonial statutes to modern versions stripped of most religious language and filled with secular exceptions for rest and recreation.
- Because the current Maryland statute's text and effect showed a secular purpose of providing a uniform day of rest rather than promoting worship, the Court concluded it did not amount to a law respecting an establishment of religion.
- The Court distinguished this case from Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, the only case it had found to violate the Establishment Clause, because Maryland's law involved no direct government cooperation with religious instruction and no coercion to attend church.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1)
The Court relied on Everson's broad reading of the Establishment Clause to frame its analysis of Maryland's law.
Distinguishes McCollum v. Board of Education (333 U.S. 203)
The Court found Maryland's Sunday law lacked the direct religious coercion and cooperation present in McCollum.
Reaffirms Salsburg v. Maryland (346 U.S. 545)
The Court relied on Salsburg to hold that different Sunday rules for different counties are not automatically unconstitutional.