Murdock v. City of Memphis was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a city ordinance requiring a license fee for door-to-door solicitation was unconstitutional. The petitioner, Murdock, was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious organization that believed in door-to-door evangelism. He was arrested for violating the ordinance and brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and religion. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a form of prior restraint, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Court also held that the ordinance was not a valid exercise of the city's police power because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate governmental interest. The Court's decision in Murdock v. City of Memphis established that the government cannot impose a fee or license requirement on individuals who wish to engage in religious or political speech. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the First Amendment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Murdock v. City of Memphis, arguing that the city ordinance at issue was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate any constitutional rights. He argued that it is within the authority of a municipality to pass ordinances for its own government and protection, so long as they do not conflict with state or federal laws. In this case, he believed that there was no such conflict since the ordinance only required those who wished to engage in door-to-door solicitation to pay an annual fee; it did not prohibit them from doing so altogether. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that other cities had similar ordinances which had been upheld by courts across the country as valid exercises of municipal police power. Thus, he concluded that while individuals have certain rights under both state and federal law which cannot be infringed upon without due process of law, these rights were not violated here because there was no prohibition on their activities; merely a requirement for payment if they chose to pursue them commercially.