UNITED STATES: On June 17, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a historic decision in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton. This case arose from the village’s insistence that Jehovah’s Witnesses obtain a permit from the mayor before engaging in their door-to-door ministry. The Court stated: “[Jehovah’s Witnesses] explained at trial that they did not apply for a permit because they derive their authority to preach from Scripture. [The Witnesses said:] ‘For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God.’” In striking down the ordinance, the Court held that the permit ordinance “is offensive​—not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society—​that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” The Court further stated: “Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor’s office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition.”

The Court also commented favorably on the tremendous effect that Jehovah’s Witnesses have had in establishing U.S. constitutional law. The Court said: “For over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering. It is more than historical accident that most of these cases involved First Amendment challenges brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated by their religion.” As the Court noted, these “cases demonstrate that efforts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to resist speech regulation have not been a struggle for their rights alone.”

In addition, on July 1, 2002, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the right of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. (Acts 15:28, 29) Charles Harvey sued his doctor to recover damages resulting from his doctor’s deliberate disregard of his refusal to take blood. Before surgery, Brother Harvey had clearly informed his doctor of his Bible-based stand. However, to administer blood when complications arose after surgery while Brother Harvey was unconscious, the doctor obtained consent from Brother Harvey’s non-Witness mother. In rejecting the mother’s consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court said that “a patient’s wishes against medical treatment or intervention, when made known to a physician prior to surgery, must be followed by the attending physician.” Thus, the court ruled that Brother Harvey had the right to have a jury decide whether the doctor had breached his agreement to treat Brother Harvey without blood and whether the doctor had committed medical malpractice by transfusing Brother Harvey without his consent.