Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Busey v. District of Columbia

319 U.S. 579

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-06-14
Topic
general

*580 Per Curiam. In this case petitioners, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, were convicted of selling, on the streets of the District of Columbia, magazines which expound their religious views, without first procuring the license and paying the license tax required by § 47-2336 of the District of Columbia Code (1940), In affirming the conviction the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia below had two questions before it: whether the statute was applicable to petitioners, and if so whether its application as to them infringed the First Amendment. The court construed the statute as applicable and sustained its constitutionality (75 U. S. App.

Citator

Busey v. District of Columbia has been questioned or limited by later authorities: relies on overruled authority: 62 S. Ct. 1231 (overruled by Murdock v. Pennsylvania). Read them before relying on it. 21 later decisions cite it.

Authority status
caution
Cited by
21 opinions
BUSEYv. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,319 U.S. 579(1943)
63 S.Ct. 1277
BUSEY ET AL.v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
No. 235.
Argued June 1, 1943.
Decided June 14, 1943.
In view ofJonesv.Opelika,319 U.S. 103, andMurdockv.Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, the judgment in this case is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the court below may reexamine the questions whether § 47-2336 of the District of Columbia Code (1940), which forbids unlicensed sales upon the public streets, or from public space, should be construed as applicable to the facts of this case, and whether, if applicable, it is constitutional. P. 580. 75 U.S.App.D.C. 352, vacated.
CERTIORARI,post, p. 735, to review the affirmance (129 F.2d 24)
of a judgment of the Police Court of the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Hayden C. Covingtonfor petitioners.Mr. Vernon E. West, with whomMr. Richmond B. Keechwas on the brief, for respondent.Page 580
PER CURIAM.
In this case petitioners, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, were convicted of selling, on the streets of the District of Columbia, magazines which expound their religious views, without first procuring the license and paying the license tax required by § 47-2336 of the District of Columbia Code (1940). In affirming the conviction the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia below had two questions before it: whether the statute was applicable to petitioners, and if so whether its application as to them infringed the First Amendment. The court construed the statute as applicable and sustained its constitutionality (75 U.S.App.D.C. 352,129 F.2d 24), following the decision inColev.Fort Smith,202 Ark. 614,151 S.W.2d 1000, the judgment in which was affirmed by this Court inBowdenv.FortSmith,316 U.S. 584, one of the cases argued together withJonesv.Opelika,316 U.S. 584. Since the decision below, and after hearing reargument in theOpelikacase, we have vacated our earlier judgment and held the license tax imposed in that case to be unconstitutional.Jonesv.Opelika,319 U.S. 103;Murdockv.Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105. Petitioners urge us to construe the District of Columbia statute as inapplicable in order to avoid the constitutional infirmity which might otherwise exist — an infirmity conceded by respondent on the oral argument before us. In view of our decisions in theOpelikaandMurdockcases, we vacate the judgment in this case and remand the cause to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to enable it to reexamine its rulings on the construction and validity of the District ordinance in the light of those decisions. Cf.New York ex rel. Whitmanv.Wilson,318 U.S. 688,690-691, and cases cited.So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 581