En 1968 un caso judicial en el estado de Minesota [USA] se demando una ley que prohibia abrir una parte del comercio en dia domingo, la corte declaro que era legal tal prohibicion y que el estado podia por ley ordenar un dia general de descanso. Se presentaron diferentes opiniones incluso se señaló que se violaba la libertad de conciencia de las personas. En la parte final se comenta acerca de 23 lugares diferentes en los Estados Unidos donde la ley establece [no estan seguros si aun estan vigentes] aunque parezca increible unas actividades que estan prohibidas hacer en el dia de descaso -domingo-.
State v. Target Stores,
Inc., 156 N.W.2d 908 (1968)
Objective: To understand the role of the court in protecting citizensrights to due
process of
law
and to understand how the court looks to precedents when deciding cases.
Case Summary
Case Study
Activity: What makes a good
law
?
Procedure
Supreme Court Study Guide
More Sunday Laws
Resources
CASE SUMMARY
Target and Shoppers City challenged the states
Sunday
-
closing law
. That
law
prohibited the sale of certain products by certain sellers on Sundays. The Supreme
Court held that the state has broad constitutional power to establish a common day
of rest, repose, recreation, and tranquility and that the statute did not, therefore,
violate the First Amendment. But the court ultimately held that the statute violated
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was too vague and uncertain
in its statutory scheme and criminal consequence. According to the court, the statute did not define what products could and could not be sold on Sundays with enough
specificity to put merchants on notice of the consequences of certain sales.
CASE STUDY
State v. Target Stores, Inc., 156 N.W.2d 908 (1968)
In 1967, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a
law
prohibiting the sale of certain items on Sundays. Criminal penalties were included
for violations of the
law
. The classes of items restricted included:
Cameras; musical instruments including pianos and organs, record and other recordings;
phonographs and tape recorders; radio receivers and television receivers; jewelry;
clocks and watches; furs; furniture and other home furnishings; home appliances;
footwear; wearing apparel of all kinds; luggage; lawn mowers and other power driven or
manually operated machinery and equipment; hardware and tools; paints, varnishes
and wallpaper, and painting and wallpaper tools and supplies; lumber and other building
materials and supplies; floor coverings.
However, certain exceptions were also made. Sales not restricted by the 1967
law
included the sale of items not included in the above list, sales of items at places
of entertainment and recreation if the item was to be used at that place; sales by
retailers whose business is seasonal;and sales at a state or county fair.
Although the legislature did not declare a purpose of the
law
, ostensibly the legislature was following in the tradition of other
Sunday closing
laws, the purpose of which are to promote a day of rest for the citizenry. However,
the new suburban discount stores read the
law
as an attempt to suppress competition and favor the downtown stores which preferred
to be closed on
Sunday
.
Target, the defendant, and amicus curiae (friend of the court) Shoppers City claimed
that the
law
was unconstitutional on several grounds. First, the defendant claimed that the
law
discriminated against suburban discount stores and singled out only retail merchants,
exempting certain commodities and sellers of commodities from restriction, in violation
of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (amicus) argued that the
law
effectively helped to establish religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion
which violated the First Amendment. And finally, the
law
was too vague and could not reasonably inform a person of the potential criminal
consequences of his/her acts, which is a violation of the Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In summary, the defendants argued that the
law
was discriminatory, unequal in its treatment of people, violated the separation of
church and state, and was too vague.
The opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court, written by Justice Peterson, drew heavily
from the precedents established by four landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued
in 1961 collectively referred to as the
Sunday Closing
Cases.
These cases provided the basis for the court to dismiss the assertion that the
law
in question violated the separation of church and state. Peterson wrote:
We hold, on the controlling authority of the United States Supreme Court in the
Sunday Closing
Cases, that the state has broad constitutional power to establish a common day of
rest, repose, recreation, and tranquility; and we hold on the same authority that
the exercise of that power in the instant case does not offend against the First
Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the states certainly had the power to designate a
day of rest in the interest of the public good. Chief Justice Warren, writing in
McGowan v. State of Maryland, one of the
Sunday closing
cases, said, To say that the States cannot prescribe
Sunday
as a day of rest because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in religion would
give constitutional hostility to the public welfare In other words, even though the
practice of resting on
Sunday
may have its origins in a particular religion practice, this should not currently
prevent states from establishing a day of rest on the same day for non-sacred reasons.
The discrimination and unequal treatment arguments were also dismissed by the Minnesota
court on bases provided by the McGowan decision. Justice Warren, in McGowan, wrote:
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting
laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional
safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant
to the achievement of the State ís objective. State legislatures are presumed to have
acted within their constitutional powers despite the fact that, in practice, their
laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside
if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.
Finally, the question of vagueness was tackled. Here the Minnesota court abandons
the
Sunday Closing
Cases noting that none of them addressed the issue of vagueness. Instead the opinion
refers to a U.S. Supreme Court statement from Connally v. General Const. Co., which
declares the principle essential to determining whether a
law
is too vague and therefore violates the due process of
law
:
[A criminal] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms
so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of
law
.
Restated, this principle requires that a
law
be clear enough that all people of average intelligence would easily agree about
the
law
ís meaning and how it is to be applied. When a
law
punishes certain behavior, then due process requires that those behaviors be obviously
described so people can easily understand how to avoid the punishment. If people
could easily be confused as to what behaviors the
law
prohibits, the
law
violates the due process requirement.
In the Minnesota court ís opinion, Peterson quoted an earlier Minnesota ruling in
State v. McCorvey, A criminal statute must be definite enough to give notice of the
conduct required to anyone who desires to avoid its penalties
The court held that the
law
in question did not pass this test for clarity. Peterson wrote the vagueness and
uncertainty in the designation of restricted commodities does not afford clear warning
to a potential defendant of conduct which may result in severe penal sanctions Examples were provided to illustrate this ambiguity, including the following:
A merchant might well be in doubt whether portable outdoor barbecue grills, with or
without motor-driven rotisserie units, are either unrestricted or are restricted
as being within such classifications as home appliances,furniture and other home
furnishings,or lawn mowers and other machinery and equipment. í
Therefore, the
law
prohibiting the sale of certain restricted commodities on
Sunday
was declared unconstitutional because the court was not convinced that reasonable
people could easily discern which specific items were restricted and which were not.
Without that clarity, the
law
violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This case did not address other laws that specifically prohibited
Sunday
activity such as the prohibition on
Sunday
car sales and the operation of commercial trucks in cities. These laws remained the
law
in Minnesota until the Minnesota Legislature repealed many of them during the approximately
20 years after this case. In some cases, such as
Sunday
car sales and liquor sales, the laws limiting sales continue to exist today.
ACTIVITY: WHAT MAKES A GOOD
LAW
?
This activity helps students think about the court ís role in the application of laws.
What does the court do when it encounters a
law
that is not written clearly enough to be understood?
PROCEDURE
1. Ask students to list characteristics of good laws. Their lists will include characteristics
such as the following:
a. Laws should be worthwhile
b. Laws should be fair
c. Laws should be consistently applied
d. Laws should be understandable
e. Laws should be able to be followed
f. Laws should be enforceable
2. Using their characteristics of good laws, ask them to analyze some rule or laws.
You can begin with some silly rules to help them practice the application of the
criteria. Some suggestions include
a. No swimming in Minnesota lakes
b. Dancing on the water not allowed
c. No flimming on the flam
d. Boys cannot drive motorcycles
e. All persons must be asleep before 12 midnight
3. Ask students to try to think of existing or proposed laws that do not have the
characteristics of good laws. For example, the legislature passed a
law
that required slow drivers to keep to the right. The governor vetoed the
law
. Appling the characteristics above, discuss whether or not the
law
was a good
law
.
4. Focus the studentsattention on the characteristic laws should be understandable.
What does this mean? Understandable to whom? Why is this important? What happens
if one cannot understand the rule or
law
? Is a
law
or rule that is not understandable fair? Why or why not?
5. Read the CASE STUDY State v. Target Stores, Inc. Have students complete the Supreme
Court Case Study Guide to help them understand the case. Under the facts section,
ask them to look closely at the words in the
law
and try to identify items that may or may not be covered by the
law
. This will help them understand what is vague about the
law
.
6. Optional Activity: Help students think about how laws change over time. Ask them
to research the Sundays
closing
laws referred to in the case: Minn. Statute Section 168.275 (sales of cars), Minn.
Statute Section 221.191 (operation of trucks on Sundays) to find out what has happened
to them. The statutes are available on line at www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/statutes.htm.
7. For fun, have students review More
Sunday
Laws.
SUPREME COURT CASE STUDY GUIDE
State v. Target Stores, Inc., 156 N.W.2d 908 (1968)
1. What is the name of the case?
2. What are the facts of the case?
a. What happened?
b. Who was involved?
c. What did the
law
say?
d. Why did they challenge the
law
?
e. How did the trial court rule?
f. Which facts are important? Why?
g. What additional facts would you like to have?
3. What is the constitutional or legal issue?
a. What part of the Minnesota Constitution or U.S. Constitution is involved?
b. What question is the court being asked to answer? This is often referred to as
the legal issue.
4. What are the arguments?
a. What are the reasons why the Legislature passed a
law
regarding the sale of items on Sundays?
b. What arguments did the owners of Target make?
5. What is the Supreme Court ís decision?
6. How do you feel about the decision?
7. What was the impact of the decision?
8. Why do you think some
Sunday Closing
laws still exist?
Adapted from Supreme Court Case Study Guide from Teaching about Court Cases, Minnesota
Center for Community Legal Education, 1999, reprinted with permission.
MORE SUNDAY LAWS
(Do not assume that any of these laws are still active or currently enforced.)
1. It was once illegal in Boston, Massachusetts to take a bath on
Sunday
.
2. In Memphis, Tennessee it ís illegal to sell teddy bears or yo-yos on
Sunday
.
3. It is against the
law
in Detroit, Michigan for a man to scowl at his wife on
Sunday
.
4. Sneezing or burping is illegal during a church service in Omaha, Nebraska.
5. It is against the
law
in Nebraska to quarrel with your wife on
Sunday
.
6. On
Sunday
in Cicero, Illinois, it is illegal to be humming on the streets.
7. It is illegal to talk in church in St. Louis, Missouri.
8. In the state of Louisiana it is illegal to whistle in church.
9. In Kulmont, Pennsylvania it is illegal to hold prisoners in jail on
Sunday
.
10. In Georgia it is a misdemeanor to bathe on
Sunday
in a stream or pond in the view of a road leading to a church.
11. In Arkansas the
law
prohibits playing cards on
Sunday
.
12. It is illegal to play dominoes on
Sunday
in Alabama.
13. A 1942 Mississippi
law
outlaws on
Sunday
, any games, tricks, ball-playing or any kind, juggling, sleight of hand, or feats
of dexterity, agility of body, or any bear-baiting or any bull fighting, horse racing,
or cock fighting, or any such like show or exhibit whatsoever. Violators were fined
$50 (in 1942 money).
14. A Missouri
law
reads, Every person who shall be convicted of horse racing, cock fighting, or playing
at cards or games of any kind, on the first day of the week, commonly called
Sunday
, shall be deemed guilty or a misdemeanor, and fined not exceeding $50.00.
15. In Ohio circuses and theatres may not perform on
Sunday
.
16. Also in Ohio it is illegal for anyone over 14 to be engaged in, sporting, rioting,
quarreling, hunting, fishing, or shooting on
Sunday
.
17. In England a person may not recite Shakespeare on
Sunday
, but if he uses gestures, it ís OK; nor can he wear a kilt on the stage unless it
is part of his weekday dress.
18. In London, England it is illegal to kiss a girl on
Sunday
.
19. In Manchester, England city council members must attend church every
Sunday
.
20. A Seventeenth Century British
law
forbid anyone to work on
Sunday
.
21. In Somerset, England you must not wear the same cloths on
Sunday
as you wear on weekdays.
22. In Yorkshire, England you must have Yorkshire pudding with roast beef on Sundays
and holidays.
23. A person in British Columbia can be set publicly in stocks for three hours for
attending a symphony concert, running a three-legged race for money, or hiring a
bicycle on
Sunday
.
24. In the Philippines a
law
prohibits eating rice on
Sunday
.
25. No one may take heated baths on
Sunday
in Teruel, Spain.
Sources:
Hyman, Dick. The Columbus Chicken Statute and More Bonehead Legislation.
Lexington, Massachusetts: The Stephen Greene Press, 1985.
Hyman, Dick. More Crazy Laws. New York: Scholastic Inc., 1992.
Bereson, Ray. Great American Blue Laws (poster). Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 1976.
RESOURCES
Sunday
Laws:
Hyman, Dick. The Columbus Chicken Statute and More Bonehead Legislation.
Lexington, Massachusetts: The Stephen Greene Press, 1985.
Hyman, Dick. More Crazy Laws. New York: Scholastic Inc., 1992.
Bereson, Ray. Great American Blue Laws (poster). Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 1976.
Minnesota Legislature www.leg.state.mn.us
Teaching about Court Cases, Minnesota Center for Community Legal Education,
www.ccle.fourh.umn.edu/lessons.html
[http://libertare.tripod.com] [libertare@SoftHome.net]
<