Kunz v. New York
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 17, 1950 Decided January 15, 1951
Full case name	Kunz v. New York
Citations	340 U.S. 290 (more) 71 S. Ct. 312; 95 L. Ed. 2d 280; 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2248
Court membership
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
Majority	Vinson, joined by Reed, Douglas, Burton, Clark, Minton
Concurrence	Black
Concurrence	Frankfurter
Dissent	Jackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends I

Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held a requirement mandating a permit to speak on religious issues in public was unconstitutional. The case was argued on October 17, 1950, and decided on January 15, 1951, with an 8–1 decision. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion for the Court. Justice Black and Justice Frankfurter concurred in the result only. Justice Jackson dissented.

Kunz helped establish the principle that government restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to avoid improperly limiting expression protected by the First Amendment. In this case, the Court held that laws granting public officials broad discretion to restrain speech about religious issues in advance constitute an invalid prior restraint, violating the First Amendment. The Court reversed the 1948 conviction of Baptist minister Carl J. Kunz, who was found guilty of violating a New York City ordinance required a permit from the police commissioner to hold religious services on public streets. Although the ordinance did not specify grounds for refusing permission, Kunz was denied permits in 1947 and 1948 after being accused of making “scurrilous attacks” on Catholics and Jews under a previous permit. He was subsequently arrested for speaking without a permit in Columbus Circle.

Kunz's conviction for violating the ordinance was upheld by the Appellate Part of the Court of Special Sessions and by the New York Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that New York's ordinance was overly broad because it failed to provide any standards for administrators to determine who should receive permits to speak about religious issues.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Robert Jackson argued that Kunz had used “fighting words” that were not protected by the First Amendment (see unprotected speech). He also criticized the Court for striking down the permit scheme citing the recent case of Feiner v. New York (1951), in which the Court had allowed local officials the discretion to arrest volatile speakers during their presentations.

• Clear and present danger
• Imminent lawless action
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 340
• Shouting fire in a crowded theater
• Threatening the president of the United States
• Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
• Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951)
• Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)
• Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
• Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, (1917)
• Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952)
• Schenck v. United States, 248 U.S. 47 (1919)
• Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
• Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

• Works related to Kunz v. New York at Wikisource
• Text of Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress