Braunfeld v. Brown

Appellant
Abraham Braunfeld, et al.
Appellee
Albert N. Brown, Commissioner of Police of Philadelphia, et al.
Appellant's Claim
That Philadelphia's blue laws, which force the closing of stores on Sundays,interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Theodore R. Mann
Chief Lawyer for the Appellee
David Berger
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II, Charles Evans Whittaker, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 May 1961
Decision
Upheld Pennsylvania's blue laws, deciding that they did not violate individual freedom of religion.
Significance
The Court considered whether a law which establishes a valid secular goal, but which results in indirect burdens for people of a particular religion, violates First Amendment rights to the freedom of religion. The Court decided that laws which do not prohibit the practice of a religion, even if they presentrelated difficulties, cannot be considered unconstitutional.
"Blue laws" are state laws which prohibit non-essential or certain forms of commerce on Sundays, in order to create an uniform day of rest for the community. They have their origins in the colonial period, and were named for the color of the paper on which they were originally printed. In 1959, Pennsylvaniapassed just such a blue law, requiring shops and other businesses to remainclosed on Sundays.
The appellant, Abraham Braunfeld, owned and operated a clothing and home furnishing store in Philadelphia. He was also an Orthodox Jew; his religion required him to observe the Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, by engaging in no work and closing his shop. Because of the revenue lost on Friday evening and all day Saturday, Braunfeld relied on being open on Sundays. Braunfeld asserted that if he was required to also close his shop on Sundays, in accordance with the Pennsylvania blue law, he would necessarily suffer economic hardship, and would not be able to continue in his business. The appellant asserted that this interfered with his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case was dismissed at the state level and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The appellant in this case, as well as the appellants in Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley argued that the Pennsylvania statute was an attempt to establish a religion, since the blue laws emerged from the Christian practice of refraining from work on Sunday. They also asserted thatthe statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment, by not providing equal protection to people of different religious faiths. The Court had considered both of these arguments in Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, and had dismissed them as invalid. The Court had also found in McGowanv. Maryland, a related case, that the states had the right

toset one day of the week apart from the others as a day of rest, repose, recreation and tranquility, a day when the hectic tempo of everyday existence ceases and a more pleasant atmosphere is created, a day which all members of thefamily and community have the opportunity to spend and enjoy together.

This right, according to the Court, was a valid secular pursuit for states, and did not constitute the establishment of religion.
The question remaining before the Court, then, was whether or not the Pennsylvania blue law interfered with the appellant's free exercise of religion. Theappellee did not dispute the appellant would suffer financially by being forced to close on Sunday. A significant amount of business was done on that day. On this question, the Court reaffirmed that

Certain aspects ofreligious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation.

While holding this true, the Court also stated,

the freedom to act, even when the action is in accordwith one's religious convictions, is not totally free from legislative restrictions.

As long as the legislation was not directly interfering with religious practices, and was designed to promote some valid secular goal, it would not be considered unconstitutional. The Court asserted,

To strike down, without the most critical scrutiny, legislation which imposes only an indirect burden on the exercise of religion, i.e., legislation which does not make unlawful the religious practice itself, would radically restrict the operating latitude of the legislature.

Another example of an indirect burden on the practice of religion is tax lawswhich limit the deductions available for donations to religion. Although theblue law in question would make practicing Orthodox Judaism more expensive,it did not prevent Orthodox Jews from abiding by the tenets of that religion,including refraining from work on Saturdays.
Impact
Justice Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he argued that the bluelaws actually did infringe on the free exercise of religion. The burden whichthe laws created for the appellant, while indirect, was great; if Braunfeldhad to close his shop on Sundays, he would not be able to continue in his business. Justice Brennan phrased the question as

whether a state may put an individual to a choice between his business and his religion,

and argued that it was in fact unconstitutional to do so.
In the end, however, the case had limited impact on religious freedom. Shopping malls and chain stores changed the way business was done, and the blue laws which the case called into question were largely repealed as commerce in towns, cities, and suburbs grew.
Related Cases

• Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879).
  
• Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 296 (1940).
  
• McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
  
• Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582 (1961).

Blue Laws/Morality Laws
Blue laws seek to strictly legislate personal behavior in puritanical fashion, particularly on Sundays and holidays. The origin of the expression, "blue laws," goes back to 1781, and is attributed to Reverend Samuel A. Peters in his book, A General History of Connecticut. Peters coined the phrase, "blue laws," and makes reference to these laws supposedly in force in Connecticut. Some of the laws he named however, either didn't exist, or were less severe.
Blue laws became connected with New England's Puritans. In colonial America,similar restrictions on work, sports, and travel, and requirements to attendchurch on Sunday were common in the South as well as New England. Other bluelaws have restricted the sale of alcohol and tobacco products on Sunday and holidays, or prohibit specific personal activities like dancing or playing cards.
Although some of these outdated laws are still on the books, many are not enforced today. In 1919 the federal government attempted to legislate the prohibition of alcohol altogether with the National Prohibition Act, the EighteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was repealed in 1933.
Sources
New Standard Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, Chicago, IL: Standard Educational Corp., 1990.