BLUE LAWS
A state or local law that prohibits commercial activities on Sunday.
Blue laws have been part of U.S. LEGAL HISTORY
since the colonial period. These laws,
which today are usually referred to as Sunday
closing laws, prohibit certain types of commercial
activity on Sundays. Originally these laws
were directed at personal activities regarded as
moral offenses, such as gambling or the consumption
of alcohol. In the nineteenth century,
however, state and local governments passed
laws that forbade businesses from operating on
Sunday. Although these laws were clearly based
on Christian beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled that they do not violate the First Amendment’s
Establishment Clause. Many blue laws
have been repealed since the 1960s, but some
laws that ban the sale of alcohol on Sunday
remain in force.
In 1781, the Reverend Samuel Peters published
A General History of Connecticut, in which
he used the term blue laws to refer to a set of laws
that the Puritans had enacted in the 1600s to
control morality. He claimed that the laws were
printed on blue paper, hence the terminology.
Historians, however, have concluded that this
claim was false, as were many of the laws he purported
to have discovered. Some have speculated
that the use of the word blue came from a connotation
that suggested a rigidly moral position,
akin to the term bluenose that refers to a prudish,
moralistic person.
The decline of Puritanism and religiousbased
governments in the 1700s signaled a
decline in laws that banned personal activities
on Sunday. Many states and towns, however,
passed laws to forbid merchants and laborers
from working on Sunday. These laws were not
based on concerns that workers deserved a day
of rest. Instead, they were meant to respect the
Christian Sabbath. In the nineteenth century,
the enactment of these laws proceeded west with
the expansion of the United States. By the late
1850s, the courts had been called upon to analyze
the effect of blue laws on liability issues. For
example, in Philadelphia,Wilmington, and Baltimore
Railroad Co. v. Philadelphia and Havre de
Grace Steam Towboat Co., 64 U.S. (23 How.) 209
(1859), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a railroad
that left debris in the water is not excused
for damage to a commercial boat that sailed on
Sunday. The Court reasoned that boats are
works of necessity that are not bound by Sunday
closing laws.
The rise of the TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT
after the Civil War led to the passage of many
blue laws that forbade the sale of liquor on Sunday,
whether in a bar or in a retail store. These
prohibitions sometimes banned the sale of
tobacco products and by the late nineteenth century,
certain public entertainments were not
allowed on Sunday. After the failure of PROHIBITION
and the legalization of alcoholic beverages
in 1933, many states and localities used their
blue laws to prevent the operation of liquor
stores and bars on Sunday.
Between 1859 and 1900, the Supreme Court
heard eight cases involving blue laws. In Soon
Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S. Ct. 730. 28
L.Ed. 1145 (1885), the Court upheld a law that
barred physical labor on Sunday. The Court
concluded that the law was intended to prevent
undue physical labor rather than promote religion.
This was the first decision that examined
whether a Sunday closing law was based on religious
grounds. Other decisions during this
period found the court validating jury verdicts
made on Sunday and determining that the operation
of a barber shop on Sunday was not a
“work of necessity” that exempted the shop
from a blue law.
During the early twentieth century many
blue laws were amended to permit exemptions.
Over time these exemptions produced a bewildering
set of rules that appeared ARBITRARY and
at times absurd. For example, a hardware store
could be open on Sundays, and the proprietor
could sell nails, but not hammers. After WORLD
WAR II and expansion of U.S. consumer culture,
Sunday closing laws were repealed, or were not
enforced for commerce that did not involve the
sale of alcohol. Nevertheless, non-Christians
and some business owners chafed under the
restrictions that remained in force.
The Supreme Court resolved the constitutionality
of blue laws in McGowan v. Maryland,
366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393
(1961). The state of Maryland mandated that
many businesses must be closed on Sunday.
Occupations of necessity or charity were
exempted from the law, which included hospitals.
Department stores could open on Sunday,
but only certain retail items could be sold on
that day: tobacco products, candy, milk, bread,
fruit, gasoline, oils, greases, drugs, medicines,
newspapers, and magazines.Maryland fined the
employees of a department store for selling
items not on the exempted list. These items
included a notebook, a can of floor wax, a stapler
and staples, and a toy submarine. The employees appealed their convictions all the way
to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Maryland
blue law violated the EQUAL PROTECTION
and DUE PROCESS clauses of the FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT as well as the First Amendment’s
Establishment Clause. They contended that the
law was based on specific religious beliefs and
compelled all persons to minimally observe the
Christian day of worship.
The Court rejected these arguments and
upheld the law. Chief Justice EARL WARREN,
writing for the majority, acknowledged that the
law and other similar laws had originally been
enacted for religious purposes. He concluded,
however, that the Sunday closing laws had
evolved into further secular ends and that this
defeated an Establishment Clause claim. The
Court, in reviewing the history of blue laws,
ruled that nonreligious reasons for the laws had
been propounded since the 1700s. Secular argument
for blue laws included the idea that it was
good for the government to encourage people to
take a day off work for rest and relaxation. In
addition, the Court ruled that the employees
could not make an Establishment Clause claim
because they did not allege that their religious
freedom had been infringed. They had only
claimed the law had caused them economic
harm. The Court, however, did not address how
the secular goals it described were achieved
when the law merely banned the sale of certain
retail items. Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS filed a
dissenting opinion in which he argued that the
state had no business restricting innocent acts
because they offended the “sentiments of their
Christian neighbors.” In his view the law violated
the Establishment Clause.
Since this decision the Supreme Court has
not revisited blue laws. As long as these laws can
be supported by a secular purpose they will be
viewed as constitutional. In the 40 years since
McGowan, however, most states and localities
have abandoned enforcement of blue laws. The
one exception remains the sale of alcohol on
Sundays by liquor stores.
FURTHER READINGS
Andrus, Silas. 1999. The Blue Laws. Storrs, Conn.: Bibliopola
Press.
“The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Labor and
Employment Law in the Supreme Court, 1984.” 1986.
New York Law School Law Review 31 (winter).
Raucher, Alan. 1994. “Sunday Business and the Decline of
Sunday Closing Laws: A Historical Overview.” Journal of
Church and State 36 (winter).
