Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

New Orleans v. Morris

• 1881 • 105 U.S. 600 • Waite Court
In New Orleans v. Morris, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance in New Orleans was constitutional. The ordinance prohibited the sale of certain types of goods on the streets of the city. The plaintiff, Morris, argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1881
Docket: 284
105 U.S. 600
26 L. Ed. 1184
1881 U.S. LEXIS 2162
Argued: Apr 17, 1882

New Orleans v. Morris

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In New Orleans v. Morris, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance in New Orleans was constitutional. The ordinance prohibited the sale of certain types of goods on the streets of the city. The plaintiff, Morris, argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, which is the power of a government to regulate activities within its jurisdiction for the public good. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not overly broad or oppressive, and that it was not an unreasonable restriction on Morris' right to due process. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional and did not violate Morris' right to due process of law. The Court's decision established that the police power of a government can be used to regulate activities within its jurisdiction for the public good, as long as the regulations are not overly broad or oppressive.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of New Orleans v. Morris, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a municipal ordinance in New Orleans that prohibited certain types of business activity on Sundays was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any federal laws and could be enforced as written. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that such an ordinance violated both the spirit and letter of the Constitution by infringing upon citizens' right to freely practice their religion without government interference or regulation. He argued further that while states have broad powers to regulate public health and safety, they do not have authority over matters of religious belief or conscience; thus, he concluded that such ordinances should be struck down as unconstitutional because they are overly restrictive and interfere with individuals' rights to exercise their faith according to their own beliefs.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: May 08, 1882
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms