Sunday closing law does not violate equal protection clause
How later courts described this case
- Sunday closing law does not violate equal protection clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Schettino, J.
(dissenting). As I have previously indicated by my concurrence in Mr. Justice Francis’ dissent in Two Guys from Harrison v. Furman, 32 N. J. 199 (1960), my opinion is that section 1 of Chapter 119, L. 1959, N. J. S. 2A:171-5.8 is violative of the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. The recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 , 81 S. Ct. 1153 , 1218, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1961); Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U. S. 582 , 81 S. Ct. 1185 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1961); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 , 81 S. Ct. 1144 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 563 (1961); and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market, 366 U. S. 617 , 81 S. Ct. 1122 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 536 (1961), do not appear to me to dispose of this question in view of the absence of a general Uew Jersey statute designed to set aside Sunday as a day of rest and relaxation. See Mr. Justice Francis’ discussion on that point, 32 N. J., at pp. 253-255. If this position is sound, the statutory basis for the instant conviction is void and we do not reach the question of its effect upon defendant’s right to the free exercise of his religion.
*128 Assuming, however, that the statute is constitutional, Eass falls within the exception enacted for the benefit of Sabbatarians, N. J. 8. 2A:171-4. On this issue, I concur in the opinion of Chief Justice Weintbaub as to his interpretation of “openly expose to sale.”
For affirmance—Justices Erancis, Pboctor, Hall and Haneman—4.
For reversal—Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Jacobs and Schettino—3.