United States v. Ballard
1944 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. Ballard?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 1943 term.
United States v. Ballard | |
---|---|
Argued March 3–6, 1944 Decided April 24, 1944 | |
Full case name | United States v. Ballard, et al. |
Citations | 322 U.S. 78 (more) 64 S. Ct. 882; 88 L. Ed. 1148; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 810 |
Case history | |
Prior | 35 F. Supp. 105 (S.D. Cal. 1940); reversed, 138 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1943); cert. granted, 320 U.S. 733 (1944). |
Holding | |
"...[W]e do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Douglas, joined by Black, Reed, Murphy, Rutledge |
Dissent | Stone, joined by Roberts, Frankfurter |
Dissent | Jackson |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const., Amends. I |
The case arose from the appeal of the conviction of two leaders of the new religious "I AM" Activity movement for fraudulently seeking and collecting donations on the basis of religious claims that the defendants themselves did not believe.[1]
The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the defendants' claims about their religious experiences were actually true should not have been submitted to a jury. The Court arrived at this conclusion in part because the "freedom of religious belief... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths." However, the Court did not address the issue of whether the sincerity of the defendants' beliefs was a proper question for the jury.
Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting, would have gone even farther, suggesting that the entire case should be dismissed for coming too close to being an investigation into the truth of a religious conviction. He would have held unconstitutional a jury determination of whether the defendants' religious beliefs were sincere, as well as whether they were true.