Follet v. McCormick was one in a series of cases in which the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of license taxes applied to religious activities. In this case, a city ordinance required that all individuals who engage in the sale of books within the city limits purchase a license. A Jehovah’s Witness who made his living selling religious books was arrested for violating the statute. The Witness moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the license tax infringed on his right to freely exercise his religion. The city distinguished its tax from the one at issue in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, stating that its tax applied only to individuals who sold books, which is a purely commercial activity, and not the solicitation of religious donations. The Court rejected the city’s argument. Just because the sale of books constituted the preacher’s sole source of income did not mean his activities were not protected by the First Amendment. The effect of imposing a license tax on preachers who make their living selling religious books would have the same effect as a license tax on those who solicit religious donations; it would tend to suppress that activity. Because the tax would function as a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion, the Court found that it violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Opens in a new window