Cantwell v. Connecticut

E15188

First Amendment case United States Supreme Court case free exercise of religion case incorporation doctrine case

Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Cantwell v. Connecticut canonical	8
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)	2

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T61136 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Cantwell v. Connecticut
Context triple: [Free Exercise Clause, interpretedInCase, Cantwell v. Connecticut]

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
D. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
E. Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Cantwell v. Connecticut
Target entity description: Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
D. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
E. Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	First Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ free exercise of religion case ⓘ incorporation doctrine case ⓘ
appliedToStatesThrough	Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ linked to: Fourteenth Amendment
areaOfLaw	First Amendment law ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ religion clauses jurisprudence ⓘ
arguedDate	1940-03-29 ⓘ
citation	310 U.S. 296 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInvolved	First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ Free Exercise Clause ⓘ Free Speech Clause ⓘ linked to: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1940-05-20 ⓘ
fullName	Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ
holding	A state may not unduly restrict religious proselytizing through a licensing system that vests discretion in a public official. ⓘ The Connecticut statute requiring a certificate for religious solicitation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ⓘ The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. ⓘ linked to: Free Exercise Clause
issue	Whether a state can require prior approval before individuals engage in religious solicitation and proselytizing. ⓘ Whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause applies to state governments. ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal law ⓘ
legalRule	Government may regulate time, place, and manner of solicitation but may not vest officials with discretion to determine what is a religious cause. ⓘ Restrictions on religious solicitation must be neutral and not based on the content or legitimacy of religious beliefs. ⓘ States may not condition the exercise of religious proselytizing on a prior license that depends on official judgment of religious value. ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Owen J. Roberts ⓘ linked to: Justice Owen J. Roberts
opinionType	unanimous opinion ⓘ
page	296 ⓘ
petitioner	Cantwell family ⓘ Newton Cantwell ⓘ
priorHistory	State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) ⓘ
relatedCase	Everson v. Board of Education ⓘ Murdock v. Pennsylvania ⓘ Reynolds v. United States ⓘ
relatedConcept	incorporation of the Bill of Rights ⓘ prior restraint ⓘ religious proselytizing ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	State of Connecticut ⓘ linked to: Connecticut
significance	Clarified limits on state regulation of religious solicitation and proselytizing. ⓘ First Supreme Court case to explicitly apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states. ⓘ Important early incorporation case for First Amendment religious freedoms. ⓘ
stateInvolved	Connecticut ⓘ
subjectMatter	door-to-door solicitation ⓘ freedom of speech ⓘ religious liberty ⓘ
volume	310 ⓘ
vote	9-0 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (10)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Free Exercise Clause → interpretedInCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Cantwell v. Connecticut → fullName → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) → relatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) ⓘ

linked to: Cantwell v. Connecticut

State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 8 A.2d 533 (1939) → followedBy → Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) ⓘ

linked to: Cantwell v. Connecticut

Newton Cantwell → hasRoleIn → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Cantwell family → legalCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Murdock v. Pennsylvania → relatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Minersville School District v. Gobitis → isRelatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton → relatedCase → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

Follett v. Town of McCormick → relatedTo → Cantwell v. Connecticut ⓘ

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (48)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (10)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited