October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1737
Does a village ban on unregistered door-to-door soliciting violate the First Amendment?
The Watchtower Bible Society challenges a local ordinance that requires residents to register before soliciting on private property.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Polidoro argued the ordinance restricts speech on private property.
Mr. Gormley noted the ordinance differs from prior statutes in scope.
Mr. Cantor argued the village exercises police power to protect privacy.
Mr. Polidoro addressed Justice O'Connor's question about trick-or-treaters.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Watchtower Bible Society argues the village ordinance violates free speech rights. The Village of Stratton defends the rule as a privacy and safety measure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-25
What each side wants
The Watchtower Bible Society wants the Court to strike down the village ordinance.
The Village of Stratton wants the Court to uphold the village ordinance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
What each side says
The Watchtower Bible Society argues the ordinance restricts protected speech on private property.
The Village of Stratton argues the ordinance protects resident privacy and deters crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked if the ordinance applies to trick-or-treaters.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case is submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-25
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of local control over door-to-door speech. It balances community safety against individual expression rights. The outcome shapes how villages regulate solicitation on private land.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 7-41 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 7-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.