Braunfeld v. Brown
Encyclopedia
Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court
. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that a Pennsylvania law forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution
.
4699.10 (1960 Cum. Supp.) overturned as unconstitutional. A three judge panel rejected their petition. (See Abraham Braunfeld v. Thomas J. Gibbons and Victor H. Blanc, 184 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.Pa 1959)).
The Court also based its opinion in part on two earlier rulings.
merchants. As Orthodox Jews
, the appellants were unable to do business on Friday evening or Saturday. They objected to a Pennsylvania law forbidding them from doing business on Sunday, arguing that the law unfairly discriminated against them by effectively forcing them to remain closed for one more day than competing Christian
merchants.
wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Justices Black
, Clark
, and Whittaker
.
wrote a concurring opinion with which Justice Harlan joined. (Justice Frankfurter published that opinion as part of McGowan v. Maryland
, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), but declared his opinion applicable to Braunfeld and several other cases. McGowan, 366 U.S. at 459, fn).
concurred with the Court's initial conclusion that the Pennsylvania statute did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. However, Justice Harlan dissented from the remainder of the opinion, arguing that the statute should be held unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 610-16.
also published his Braunfeld dissent as part of the earlier McGowan decision, at 366 US 561-82. In that opinion, Justice Douglas argued that the "Sunday Laws" could not be separated from their religious roots, and that the imposition of those laws on persons of other religions violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
joined Justice Brennan's dissent, and wrote further:
Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 616.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that a Pennsylvania law forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
to the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
.
Prior history
Plaintiffs sought to have a 1959 Pennsylvania statute, 18 Purdon's Pa. Stat. Ann.Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes
Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes is an unofficial consolidation of the statutes of Pennsylvania. The state's statutes are organized into 79 topic groups, ranging from "Aeronautics" to "Zoning," spread across 107 volumes...
4699.10 (1960 Cum. Supp.) overturned as unconstitutional. A three judge panel rejected their petition. (See Abraham Braunfeld v. Thomas J. Gibbons and Victor H. Blanc, 184 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.Pa 1959)).
The Court also based its opinion in part on two earlier rulings.
- In Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582 (1961), the Court had previously ruled that the same Pennsylvania statute was not unconstitutional, either as (i) a violation of the Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
or (ii) an impermissible establishment of religion under the First Amendment to the United States ConstitutionFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
. Therefore, the only remaining issue in Braunfeld was whether the Pennsylvania statute was an unconstitutional interference in the plaintiff's religion. - In McGowan v. MarylandMcGowan v. MarylandMcGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose.-Background:...
, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the Court had previously held that a similar Maryland statute was constitutional.
Background
Abraham Braunfeld and the other appellants were PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a U.S. state that is located in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The state borders Delaware and Maryland to the south, West Virginia to the southwest, Ohio to the west, New York and Ontario, Canada, to the north, and New Jersey to...
merchants. As Orthodox Jews
Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Judaism , is the approach to Judaism which adheres to the traditional interpretation and application of the laws and ethics of the Torah as legislated in the Talmudic texts by the Sanhedrin and subsequently developed and applied by the later authorities known as the Gaonim, Rishonim, and...
, the appellants were unable to do business on Friday evening or Saturday. They objected to a Pennsylvania law forbidding them from doing business on Sunday, arguing that the law unfairly discriminated against them by effectively forcing them to remain closed for one more day than competing Christian
Christian
A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament...
merchants.
Plurality opinion
Chief Justice WarrenEarl Warren
Earl Warren was the 14th Chief Justice of the United States.He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring...
wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Justices Black
Hugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
, Clark
Tom C. Clark
Thomas Campbell Clark was United States Attorney General from 1945 to 1949 and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States .- Early life and career :...
, and Whittaker
Charles Evans Whittaker
Charles Evans Whittaker was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1957 to 1962.-Early years:...
.
- Chief Justice Warren first rejected appellants' Establishment ClauseEstablishment Clause of the First AmendmentThe Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Together with the Free Exercise Clause The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,...
and Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
arguments, ruling that the Court's earlier opinion in Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582 (1961) had concluded that the statute at issue did not violate either of those provisions. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 600-01. - Chief Justice Warren then addressed appellants' remaining argument - that by requiring Orthodox Jewish merchants to remain closed for one day in addition to their religiously required day of rest, the statute unfairly burdened existing Orthodox Jews and made it more difficult for the religion to recruit more members, thereby violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First AmendmentFree Exercise Clause of the First AmendmentThe Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:...
to the United States ConstitutionUnited States ConstitutionThe Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 601-02. Chief Justice Warren reasoned as follows:- While originally enacted for religious purposes, the so-called "Sunday Closing Laws" had a legitimate state purpose in providing for the general welfare by establishing a day of rest. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 602-03, citing McGowan, 366 U.S. at 437-40.
- Although the Court had previously held that the Free Exercise Clause prevented the States from passing laws that forbade the exercise of religion or required citizens to "say or believe anything in conflict with their religious tenets," states could in some cases regulate conduct, even if that regulation burdened citizens of a particular religion. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 603-05.
- In order to balance the interests at issue, the Court held that:
-
-
- Where the "purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect." Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 607.
- However, where "the State regulates conduct by enacting a general law within its power, the purpose and effect of which is to advance the State's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the State may accomplish its purpose by means which do not impose such a burden." Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 607.
-
- In the specific case before the Court, the plurality opinion held that the law in question had only an indirect effect, and that the Court could not conclude that there was any less burdensome means of achieving the State's goals. In particular, although appellants argued that a law exempting citizens who were required to rest on other days from the Sunday rest day would be a wiser choice, the Court concluded that there were valid reasons for which a state might choose a single day of rest. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 607-09.
-
-
Concurrence/dissent (Frankfurter)
Justice FrankfurterFelix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
wrote a concurring opinion with which Justice Harlan joined. (Justice Frankfurter published that opinion as part of McGowan v. Maryland
McGowan v. Maryland
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose.-Background:...
, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), but declared his opinion applicable to Braunfeld and several other cases. McGowan, 366 U.S. at 459, fn).
- First, Justice Frankfurter examined the history of the First Amendment and "Sunday Statutes" in detail, and concluded that the Sunday statutes had a long history and substantial non-religious purpose. McGowan, 366 U.S. at 460-511.
- On that basis, Justice Frankfurter rejected most of the appellants' claims. McGowan, 366 U.S. at 511-42.
- However, Justice Frankfurter, writing solely for himself and not for Justice Harlan, did dissent on one point. Based on the procedural history of Braunfeld, Justice Frankfurter argued that appellants' claim that the law was irrational and arbitrary should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, but should have been permitted to proceed to an evidentiary stage. McGowan, 366 U.S. at 542-43.
Concurrence/dissent (Harlan)
In his opinion, Justice HarlanJohn Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1971. His namesake was his grandfather John Marshall Harlan, another associate justice who served from 1877 to 1911.Harlan was a student at Upper Canada College and Appleby College and...
concurred with the Court's initial conclusion that the Pennsylvania statute did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. However, Justice Harlan dissented from the remainder of the opinion, arguing that the statute should be held unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 610-16.
- Justice Harlan wrote in part:
[T]he issue in this case - and we do not understand either appellees or the Court to contend otherwise - is whether a State may put an individual to a choice between his business and his religion. The Court today holds that it may. But I dissent, believing that such a law prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Concurrence/dissent (Brennan)
Like Justice Harlan, Justice Brennan concurred in the plurality opinion to the extent that it held that the Pennsylvania statute did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, but dissented from the remainder of the opinion, arguing that the statute should be held unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 610-17.Dissent (Douglas)
Like Justice Frankfurter, Justice DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
also published his Braunfeld dissent as part of the earlier McGowan decision, at 366 US 561-82. In that opinion, Justice Douglas argued that the "Sunday Laws" could not be separated from their religious roots, and that the imposition of those laws on persons of other religions violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Dissent (Stewart)
Justice StewartPotter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
joined Justice Brennan's dissent, and wrote further:
Pennsylvania has passed a law which compels an Orthodox Jew to choose between his religious faith and his economic survival. That is a cruel choice. It is a choice which I think no State can constitutionally demand. For me this is not something that can be swept under the rug and forgotten in the interest of enforced Sunday togetherness. I think the impact of this law upon these appellants grossly violates their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion.
Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 616.
External links
- Oyez oral arguments and opinion.http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/49/resources