310 U.S. Decisions Denying Certiorari. No. 871. FISHER ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. MR. JUSTICE MURPHY took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Mr. Benjamin E. Jaffe for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Arnold Raum and Maurice J. Mahoney for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 707. No. 882. FRETWELL v. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. May 6, 1940. The motion to proceed on typewritten papers is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Herbert J. Jacobi for petitioner. Mr. Henry R. Ashton for respondent. Reported below: 106 F. 2d 728. No. 817. BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO Co., LTD. v. UNITED STATES. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, Joseph M. Hartfield, and Roy H. Callahan for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney for the United States. Reported below: 89 Ct. Cls. 438. No. 834. COLORADO SERUM Co. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert C. Foulston, George T. Buckingham, Paul E. Shorb, and H. Thomas Austern for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 843. Decisions Denying Certiorari. 310 U.S. No. 850. SOUTHWESTERN SERUM Co. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert C. Foulston, George T. Buckingham, Paul E. Shorb, and H. Thomas Austern for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 843. No. 842. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY WORKERS v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD ET AL. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. James A. Cobb and Perry W. Howard for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern and Thomas E. Harris for respondents. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 529. No. 849. HUBBARD V. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. ET AL. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, California, denied. Mr. George Olshausen for petitioner. Messrs. Herman Phleger, Maurice E. Harrison, and Gregory A. Harrison for respondents. Reported below: 34 Cal. App. 2d 475; 93 P. 2d 846. No. 852. ORENDORF ET AL. v. FAYETTE FARMS, INC. ET AL. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Laurence B. Finn for petitioners. Mr. Edward L. Bush for respondents. Reported below: 112 F. 2d 149. No. 858. BARBOUR v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari 310 U.S. Decisions Denying Certiorari. to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Prew Savoy for petitioner. Attorney General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Arnold Raum for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 660. No. 859. REBHUHN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 512. UNITED No. 860. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, υ. STATES. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Guy L. Webb for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Julius C. Martin, Wilbur C. Pickett, Young M. Smith, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 1023. No. 866. TEXAS NATURAL GAS UTILITIES v. CITY OF EL CAMPO ET AL. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, 1st Supreme Judicial District, of Texas, denied. Mr. Irl F. Kennerly for petitioner. Mr. Donald M. Duson for respondents. Reported below: 135 S. W. 2d 133. No. 869. WALTON v. SUTTON & Co., INC. May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia denied. Mr. George W. Reilly for petitioner. Messrs. Guy B. Hazelgrove and Ralph T. Catterall for respondent. STONE, J., dissenting. 310 U.S. channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed." This seems to me no less than the surrender of the constitutional protection of the liberty of small minorities to the popular will. We have previously pointed to the importance of a searching judicial inquiry into the legislative judgment in situations where prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may tend to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, note 4. And until now we have not hesitated similarly to scrutinize legislation restricting the civil liberty of racial and religious minorities although no political process was affected. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U. S. 284. Here we have such a small minority entertaining in good faith a religious belief, which is such a departure from the usual course of human conduct, that most persons are disposed to regard it with little toleration or concern. In such circumstances careful scrutiny of legislative efforts to secure conformity of belief and opinion by a compulsory affirmation of the desired belief, is especially needful if civil rights are to receive any protection. Tested by this standard, I am not prepared to say that the right of this small and helpless minority, including children having a strong religious conviction, whether they understand its nature or not, to refrain from an expression obnoxious to their religion, is to be overborne by the interest of the state in maintaining discipline in the schools. The Constitution expresses more than the conviction of the people that democratic processes must be preserved at all costs. It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free govern ment can exist. For this reason it would seem that legislation which operates to repress the religious freedom of small minorities, which is admittedly within the scope of the protection of the Bill of Rights, must at least be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as legislation which we have recently held to infringe the constitutional liberty of religious and racial minorities. With such scrutiny I cannot say that the inconveniences which may attend some sensible adjustment of school discipline in order that the religious convictions of these children may be spared, presents a problem so momentous or pressing as to outweigh the freedom from compulsory violation of religious faith which has been thought worthy of constitutional protection.. |