# Petition — Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0071%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 444 U.S. 620 ## Text Suprome Coart, 0. $. | FILED FEB 28 1979 IN THE Supreme Court of the Cnited States OCTOBER TERM, 1978 No. 78-1335 CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, AN ILLINOIS NON-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents, vs. VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG, Petitioners. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. JACK M. SIEGEL, 39 South LaSalle Street, | Chicago, Illinois 60603, 312-263-2968, Attorney for Petitioners, Village of Schaumburg. Gunthorp-Warren Printing Company, Chicago @ Financial 6-6565 4 ae PAGE RE So lata realy heals bi Wa wwe wae ve be -de.s 1 a ee a NaF bh Ud oie C8 b's vb dese 2 Questions Presented for Review ...................- 2 I MD ewe See eh ep et eae tenes 3 Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ........... 6 I. The Plaintiffs Were Not Entitled to a Summary ee SSC eee 6a RE ae ere ae 8 II. Section 20(g) of Chapter 22 of the Schaumburg Village Code Is Not Unconstitutional on Its Face ie MI CAREW as a iid gg oes SAS ie.9 oO ames 4 15 Ill. A Municipality Has the Right to Prohibit Purported Charitable Solicitations When the Soliciting Organi- zation Fails to Demonstrate That at Least 75 Per Cent of Its Receipts Are Utilized for Charitable I aU Ns are ia in Spa 4 wipe y S66 bob e's oi 26 RENT SEGUE UR > ye te a ana Oe IP 30 Appendix A: Seventh Circuit Opinion of Decmber 1, 1978....... Al Appendix B: U. S. District Court Opinion of February 17, 1978.. A13 Appendix C: ar a Al7 li TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. Cases. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 CUPRA ae 9:2 PRS pisces nla rpc d ase hehe EES 10 Associated Press v. United States of America, 326 U. S. 1, S9 L.. Bd. 2013; GS Bat. TER CIS): oe. ek 9 Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 95 L. Ed. 1233... .6, 19 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 155 (1939) (distinguished) ............... 24 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 33 L. Ed. 2d Dae CME CER Saat A AN alld on ate haben GES 21, 28 Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58, P. 2d 456...... 20 Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 335 U. S.875...... 20 Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 1756, 482, L.-Eds 2d 243 (1976)... 20 Sk. 5, 6, 15, 16. 17, 25 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U. S. 551, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131.. 20 Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 63 S. Ct. 862, 87 L. Ed. 1313: (1943) Cdintinguithed): . ee SS ee teen a eS? ee ee All where the salaries paid are so large in relation to the services provided that the organization is actually a for-profit venture. The 75 percent requirement might be valid where solicitors rep- resent themselves as mere conduits for contributions. But the requirement as it exists in the Village code also applies where it is made clear that the contributions will be used for reasonable salaries of those who will gather and disseminate information relevant to the organization’s purpose. Thus the standard is not a _Sufficiently narrow solution to the problems of potential fraud or to the need to identify those organizations entitled only to the protections afforded commercial speech. The freedom of expres- sion of organizations which do not present these problems is also infringed, either by absolute prohibition or the additional burden of the for-profit permit requirements. In Schneider the Supreme Court stated that although abridg- ment of First Amendment freedoms may be an efficient and convenient means to prevent fraud and trespass, these considera- tions cannot justify such abridgment. See also Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Hynes, quoting Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S. Ct. 315, 323, 89 L. Ed. 440 (1945): “[I]n the area of First Amendment protections, ‘[t]he rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed, which in other contexts might support legislation against attack on due process grounds, will not suffice. .. . Accordingly, whatever occasion would restrain orderly discussion and persuasion, at appropriate time and place, must have clear support in public danger, actual or impending.’ ” 425 U.S. at 628, 96 S. Ct. at 1764. Section 22-20(g) does not meet this standard. Our conclusion is not inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit's decision in Nat'l Foundation v. City of Ft. Worth, 415 F. 2d 41 (Sth Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1040 (1970). That decision upheld an ordinance which limited the cost of solicita- tion of charitable contributions to 20 percent of total receipts. However, the ordinance also allowed an organization which did Al2 not meet the requirement to show that its percentage was not © unreasonable. The court recognized that within the broad class of charitable organizations a rigid percentage requirement would be difficult to justify, stating: “A fixed percentage limitation on the costs of solicitation might be undesirable and inapplicable if applied to all types of charitable organizations. What may be proper in one situation may not be so in other situations. The ordinance before us does not imply a fixed standard but permits a determination of reasonableness of the ratio between the cost of solicitation and the amount collected.” Section 22-20(g) provides no similar flexibility. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is affirmed. A true Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Se ee ee ee Se Al3 APPENDIX B—OPINION OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * (Caption—76 C 470) * * FINAL JUDGMENT. The Plaintiffs in this action are the Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and a certain named employee of the organization. CBE’s major source of financial support consists of small contributions from individual citizens. CBE wishes to conduct a door-to-door fund- raising canvass in the defendant village, Schaumburg, Illinois. In Count I, the Plaintiffs contend that the Village of Schaumburg’s refusal to allow a CBE canvass deprives them of their rights guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Counts II and III of the Complaint charge that Village of Schaumburg’s solicitation ordinance violates the first and fourteenth amendments. Count II challenges the Ordi- nance as enacted by the Village of Schaumburg, and Count III challenges its subsequent codification. CBE seeks: (1) judgment declaring the ordinance void and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement; and (2) judgment declaring the Village Board’s action void and an injunction prohibiting further interference with the Plaintiffs’ right to can- vass Schaumburg. CBE now moves for summary judgment. This motion is now ready for decision on the pleadings, exhibits, and. memoranda submitted by the parties. The Schaumburg ordinance regulates charitable solicitation. All prospective solicitors must first procure a charitable solicita- tion permit from the Village. The applicant must submit infor- mation, including the name of the organization and the name Al4 under which it intends to solicit contributions, the name and address of the person in charge of solicitation in the Village, the names and addresses of all persons who will solicit contributions in the Village, the dates and times of day such solicitations are to be made, and the geographic area within the Village wherein such solicitation shall be conducted at a particular time and day, a written statement of recent date by the Attorney General of Illinois that the organization has complied with the provisions of “An Act to Regulate Solicitation and Collection of Funds for Charitable Purposes,” satisfactory proof that the organization is a tax-exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, § 501(c)(3), and satisfactory proof that at least seventy-five percent of the proceeds of such solicitations will be used directly for the charitable purpose of the organization. Chapter 22, § 20(g), of the Schaumburg Village Code states the following: (g) Satisfactory proof that at least seventy-five percent of the proceeds of such solicitations will be used directly for the charitable purpose of the organization. For such pur- poses, the following items shall not be deemed to be used for the charitable purposes of the organization, to wit: (1) Salaries or commissions paid to solicitors; (2) Administrative expenses of the organization, including, but not limited to, salaries, attorneys’ fees, rents, telephone, advertising expenses, contributions to other organizations and persons, except as a charitable contribution and related expenses incurred as adminis- trative or overhead items. For the purpose of satisfying the requirements of subpara- graph (g), the organization shall submit a certified audit of the last full year of operations, indicating the distribution of funds collected by the organization, or such other com- parable evidence as may demonstrate the fact that at least seventy-five per cent of the funds collected are utilized directly and solely for the charitable purpose of the organi- zation. (Ord. No. 1052, § 3.) CBE’s main concern is with this particular requirement. ee ee