braunfeld brown argued december decided may appellants members orthodox jewish faith requires closing places business total abstention manner work nightfall friday nightfall saturday merchants engaged retail sale clothing home furnishings philadelphia sued enjoin enforcement pennsylvania criminal statute forbade retail sale sundays commodities specified commodities claimed statute violated equal protection clause fourteenth amendment constituted law respecting establishment religion interfered free exercise religion imposing serious economic disadvantages upon adhere observance sabbath operate hinder orthodox jewish faith gaining new members held statute violate equal protection clause fourteenth amendment constitute law respecting establishment religion two guys mcginley ante prohibit free exercise appellants religion within meaning first amendment made applicable fourteenth amendment pp supp affirmed theodore mann argued cause appellants brief marvin garfinkel stephen narin david berger argued cause filed brief appellees arthur littleton benjamin quigg russell dilks filed brief pennsylvania retailers association intervening briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed lippman retail clerks international association george warner national retail merchants association leo pfeffer lewis weinstein shad polier samuel lawrence brennglass filed brief synagogue council america et amici curiae urging reversal chief justice warren announced judgment opinion justice black justice clark justice whittaker concur case concerns constitutional validity application appellants pennsylvania criminal statute enacted proscribes sunday retail sale certain enumerated commodities among questions presented whether statute law respecting establishment religion whether statute violates equal protection since questions reference statute already answered negative two guys mcginley ante since appellants present nothing new regarding need considered thus question consideration whether statute interferes free exercise appellants religion appellants merchants philadelphia engage retail sale clothing home furnishings within proscription statute issue appellants member orthodox jewish faith requires closing places business total abstention manner work nightfall friday nightfall saturday instituted suit seeking permanent injunction enforcement statute complaint amended alleged appellants previously kept places business open sunday appellants done substantial amount business sunday compensating somewhat closing saturday sunday closing result impairing ability appellants earn livelihood render appellant braunfeld unable continue business thereby losing capital investment statute unconstitutional reasons stated properly convened dismissed complaint authority two guys harrison case supp appeal brought noted probable jurisdiction appellants contend enforcement pennsylvania statute prohibit free exercise religion due statute compulsion close sunday appellants suffer substantial economic loss benefit competitors appellants also continue sabbath observance closing businesses saturday result either compel appellants give sabbath observance basic tenet orthodox jewish faith put appellants serious economic disadvantage continue adhere sabbath appellants also assert statute operate hinder orthodox jewish faith gaining new adherents corollary arguments free exercise appellants religion impeded religion subjected discriminatory treatment state mcgowan maryland ante pp noted significance attributed development religious freedom virginia determining scope first amendment protection observed virginia passed declaration rights providing men equally entitled free exercise religion virginia repealed laws way penalized maintaining opinions matters religion forbearing repair church exercising mode worship whatsoever virginia retained laws prohibiting sunday labor also took cognizance mcgowan evolution sunday closing laws wholly religious sanctions legislation concerned establishment day community tranquillity respite recreation day atmosphere one calm relaxation rather one commercialism six days week reviewed still growing state preoccupation improving health safety morals general citizens concededly appellants persons wish work sunday burdened economically state day rest mandate appellants point religion requires refrain work saturday well inquiry whether circumstances first fourteenth amendments forbid application sunday closing law appellants certain aspects religious exercise way restricted burdened either federal state legislation compulsion law acceptance creed practice form worship strictly forbidden freedom hold religious beliefs opinions absolute cantwell connecticut reynolds thus west virginia state board education barnette held state action compelling school children salute flag pain expulsion public school contrary first fourteenth amendments applied students whose religious beliefs forbade saluting flag case bar statute us make criminal holding religious belief opinion force anyone embrace religious belief say believe anything conflict religious tenets however freedom act even action accord one religious convictions totally free legislative restrictions cantwell connecticut supra pp pointed reynolds supra legislative power mere opinion forbidden may reach people actions found violation important social duties subversive good order even actions demanded one religion articulated thomas jefferson said believing religion matter lies solely man god owes account none faith worship legislative powers government reach actions opinions contemplate sovereign reverence act whole american people declared legislature make law respecting establishment religion prohibiting free exercise thereof thus building wall separation church state adhering expression nation behalf rights conscience shall see sincere satisfaction progress sentiments tend restore man natural rights convinced natural right opposition social duties emphasis added works thomas jefferson thus reynolds upheld polygamy conviction member mormon faith despite fact accepted doctrine church imposed upon male members duty practice polygamy prince massachusetts upheld statute making crime girl eighteen years age sell newspapers periodicals merchandise public places despite fact child jehovah witnesses faith believed religious duty perform work noted two cases mentioned religious practices conflicted public interest cases make accommodation religious action exercise state authority particularly delicate task resolution favor state results choice individual either abandoning religious principle facing criminal prosecution case us statute bar make unlawful religious practices appellants sunday law simply regulates secular activity applied appellants operates make practice religious beliefs expensive furthermore law effect inconvenience members orthodox jewish faith believe necessary work sunday even faced serious choice forsaking religious practices subjecting criminal prosecution fully recognizing alternatives open appellants others similarly situated retaining present occupations incurring economic disadvantage engaging commercial activity call either saturday sunday labor may well result financial sacrifice order observe religious beliefs still option wholly different legislation attempts make religious practice unlawful strike without critical scrutiny legislation imposes indirect burden exercise religion legislation make unlawful religious practice radically restrict operating latitude legislature statutes tax income limit amount may deducted religious contributions impose indirect economic burden observance religion citizen whose religion requires donate greater amount church statutes require courts closed saturday sunday impose similar indirect burden observance religion trial lawyer whose religion requires rest weekday list legislation nature nearly limitless needless say entering area religious freedom must fully cognizant particular protection constitution accorded abhorrence religious persecution intolerance basic part heritage cosmopolitan nation made people almost every conceivable religious preference denominations number almost three hundred year book american churches et seq consequently expected much less required legislators enact law regulating conduct may way result economic disadvantage religious sects others special practices various religions believe effect absolute test determining whether legislation violates freedom religion protected first amendment course hold unassailable legislation regulating conduct imposes solely indirect burden observance religion gross oversimplification purpose effect law impede observance one religions discriminate invidiously religions law constitutionally invalid even though burden may characterized indirect state regulates conduct enacting general law within power purpose effect advance state secular goals statute valid despite indirect burden religious observance unless state may accomplish purpose means impose burden see cantwell connecticut supra pp pointed mcgowan maryland supra pp find state without power provide weekly respite labor time set one day week apart others day rest repose recreation tranquillity day hectic tempo everyday existence ceases pleasant atmosphere created day members family community opportunity spend enjoy together day people may visit friends relatives available working days day weekly laborer may best regenerate particularly true day age increasing state concern public welfare legislation also mcgowan examined several suggested alternative means argued state might accomplish secular goals without even remotely incidentally affecting religious freedom ante pp found state might well find alternatives accomplish bringing general day rest need examine however appellants advance yet another means state disposal find unobjectionable contend state cut exception sunday labor proscription people religious conviction observe day rest sunday regulation appellants contend economic disadvantages imposed present system removed state interest people rest one day satisfied number provide exemption may well wiser solution problem concern wisdom legislation constitutional limitation thus reason experience teach permit exemption might well undermine state goal providing day best possible eliminates atmosphere commercial noise activity although dispositive issue enforcement problems difficult since two days police rather one difficult observe whether violations occurring additional problems might also presented regulation sort allow people rest day sunday keep businesses open day might well provide people economic advantage competitors must remain closed day might cause complain religions discriminated competitive advantage existing well temptation order keep businesses open sunday assert religious convictions compel close businesses formerly least profitable day might make necessary inquiry sincerity individual religious beliefs practice state might believe run afoul spirit constitutionally protected religious guarantees finally order keep disruption day minimum exempted employers probably hire employees qualified exemption religious beliefs practice state might feel opposed general policy prohibiting religious discrimination hiring reasons say pennsylvania statute us invalid either face applied justice harlan concurs judgment justice brennan justice stewart concur disposition appellants claims establishment clause equal protection clause justice frankfurter justice harlan rejected appellants claim free exercise clause separate opinion accordingly decision affirmed dissenting opinion justice douglas see ante footnotes selling certain personal property sunday whoever engages sunday business selling sells offers sale day retail clothing wearing apparel clothing accessories furniture housewares home business office furnishings household business office appliances hardware tools paints building lumber supply materials jewelry silverware watches clocks luggage musical instruments recordings toys excluding novelties souvenirs shall upon conviction thereof summary proceeding first offense sentenced pay fine exceeding one hundred dollars second subsequent offense committed within one year conviction first offense sentenced pay fine exceeding two hundred dollars undergo imprisonment exceeding thirty days default thereof separate sale offer sell shall constitute separate offense information charging violations section shall brought within hours commission alleged offense thereafter oliver ellsworth member constitutional convention later chief justice wrote assert rights religious liberty deny civil power right cases interfere matters religion right prohibit punish gross immoralities impieties open practice evil example detriment emphasis added written connecticut courant quoted stokes church state see concurring opinion justice cardozo joined justice brandeis justice stone hamilton regents thus cases like murdock pennsylvania follett mccormick struck municipal ordinances application required religious colporteurs pay license tax condition pursuit activities state interest obtaining revenue easily satisfied imposing tax nonreligious sources ind ann stat orthodox jewish storekeeper opens saturday subjected fierce competition indeed christian shopkeepers whereas sunday supposing closes saturday absolutely free run competition christian shopkeepers parliamentary debates commons true orthodox jew allowed trade two sunday time monopoly tremendous advantage many districts trader shop open district parliamentary debates lords connecticut exemption statute requires sabbatarians order qualify file written notice religious belief prosecuting attorney stat rev code ann purdon stat ann cum supp justice brennan concurring dissenting agree chief justice merit appellants establishment claims dissent however claim pennsylvania prohibited free exercise appellants religion demonstrated public need weekly surcease worldly labor set forth considerations convenience led commonwealth pennsylvania fix sunday time respite approach case differently point view individuals whose liberty concededly curtailed enactments values first amendment embodied fourteenth look primarily towards preservation personal liberty rather towards fulfillment collective goals appellants small retail merchants faithful practitioners orthodox jewish faith allege allegation must taken true since case comes us motion dismiss complaint one observe sabbath refraining labor orthodox jew appellants business area friday night saturday busy times yet appellants true faith close jewish sabbath make business thus lost opening sunday plaintiffs complaint continues substantial amount business sundays ability plaintiffs earn livelihood greatly impaired closing business establishment sundays consequences even drastic alleged plaintiff abraham braunfeld unable continue business may stay open sunday thereby lose capital investment words issue case understand either appellees contend otherwise whether state may put individual choice business religion today holds may dissent believing law prohibits free exercise religion first question resolved however somewhat broader facts case question concerns appropriate standard constitutional adjudication cases statute assertedly conflict first amendment whether limitation applies force absorbed less definite words fourteenth amendment cases confined narrow inquiry whether challenged law rationally related legitimate legislative end case decided finding state interest substantial important well rationally justifiable canon adjudication clearly stated justice jackson speaking west virginia state board education barnette weighing arguments parties important distinguish due process clause fourteenth amendment instrument transmitting principles first amendment cases applied sake test legislation collides fourteenth amendment also collides principles first much definite test fourteenth involved much vagueness due process clause disappears specific prohibitions first become standard right state regulate example public utility may well include far due process test concerned power impose restrictions legislature may rational basis adopting freedoms speech press assembly worship may infringed slender grounds susceptible restriction prevent grave immediate danger interests state may lawfully protect important note fourteenth amendment bears directly upon state specific limiting principles first amendment finally govern case admittedly laws compel overt affirmation repugnant belief barnette prohibit outright appellants religious practices federal law upheld reynolds cited laws say appellants must work saturday effect appellants may simultaneously practice religion trade without hampered substantial competitive disadvantage effect one may one time orthodox jew compete effectively fellow tradesmen clog upon exercise religion burden orthodox judaism exactly economic effect tax levied upon sale religious literature yet tax applied form excise license fee held invalid follett town mccormick supra read opinion concedes compelling state interest impels commonwealth pennsylvania impede appellants freedom worship overbalancing need weighty constitutional scale justifies substantial though indirect limitation appellants freedom desire stamp practice deeply abhorred society polygamy reynolds custom resting one day week universally honored amply shown state traditional protection children prince massachusetts appellants reasoning fully autonomous adults even interest seeing everyone rests one day week appellants religion requires take rest mere convenience everyone rest day defend interest holds state need follow alternative route granting exemption good faith observe day rest sunday true suppose granting exemption make sundays little noisier task police prosecutor little difficult also true majority general sunday regulations exemptions kind told significantly noisier police significantly burdened pennsylvania even england compulsion written constitution simply influenced considerations fairness exemption activities conjures several difficulties system seem fanciful real observers might get unfair advantage said similar contention draft exemption conscientious objectors another example exemption technique rejected observation unsoundness apparent require discussion selective draft law cases however widespread complaint legally baseless state reliance upon withstand first amendment claim told official inquiry good faith religious beliefs held might unconstitutional indicated otherwise ballard inquiry infringement religious freedom requirement imposed mcgowan maryland ante decided day plaintiff show religious beliefs hampered acquires standing attack statute clause first amendment finally find mention problem state antidiscrimination statutes almost chimerical statutes provide hiring may made religious basis religion bona fide occupational qualification happens moreover pennsylvania statute provision fine view exalted administrative convenience constitutional level high enough justify making one religion economically disadvantageous justify result ground effect religion though substantial indirect forgets think warning uttered congressional discussion first amendment rights conscience nature peculiar delicacy little bear gentlest touch governmental hand reverse judgment remand trial appellants allegations limited issue gen laws rev burns ind ann stat rev rev mass laws stat mo rev neb rev stat mckinney laws penal law rev code page ohio rev code stat tit laws code tex pen code art code rev code code art cf stat shops act geo vi mass laws par purdon stat ann cum supp annals cong remarks representative daniel carroll maryland august justice stewart dissenting agree substantially justice brennan written pennsylvania passed law compels orthodox jew choose religious faith economic survival cruel choice choice think state constitutionally demand something swept rug forgotten interest enforced sunday togetherness think impact law upon appellants grossly violates constitutional right free exercise religion