The village was owned by the United States under a Congressional program which was designed to provide housing for persons engaged in National Defense activities.

According to all indications the village was freely accessible and open to the public and had the characteristics of a typical American town.

At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion.

3 of the Texas Penal Code which makes it an offense for any 'peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise' willfully to refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by the owner or possessor thereof.

Tucker argued that he was not peddler or hawker of merchandise, but a minister of the gospel engaged in the distribution of religious literature to willing recipients.

He contended that to construe the Texas statute as applicable to his activities would, to that extent, bring it into conflict with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and religion.

In that case, the court had held that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious literature by requiring a permit in a company town.

[3] These cases also had a major role in enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.