opinion: Mr. Justice Whittaker
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  Appellant, Rose Staub, was convicted in the Mayor’s Court of the City of Baxley, Georgia, of violation of a city ordinance and was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days or to pay a fine of $300. The Superior Court of the county affirmed the judgment of conviction; the Court of Appeals of the State affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, 94 Ga. App. 18, 93 S. E. 2d 375; and the Supreme Court of the State denied an application for certiorari. The case comes here on appeal.
  The ordinance in question is set forth in the margin. Its violation, which is not denied, arose from the following undisputed facts shown at the trial: Appellant was a salaried employee of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union which was attempting to organize the employees of a manufacturing company located in the nearby town of Hazelhurst. A number of those employees lived in Baxley. On February 19,1954, appellant and one Mamie Merritt, also a salaried employee of the union, went to Baxley and, without applying for permits required under the ordinance, talked with several of the employees at their homes about joining the union. While in a restaurant in Baxley on that day they were sought out and questioned by the Chief of Police concerning their activities in Baxley, and appellant told him that they were “going around talking to some of the women to organize the factory workers . . . and hold [ing] meetings with them for that purpose.” Later that day a meeting was held at the home of one of the employees, attended by three other employees, at which, in the words of the hostess, appellant “just told us they wanted us to join the union, and said it would be a good thing for us to do . . . and went on to tell us how this union would help us.” Appellant told those present that the membership dues would be 64 cents per week but would not be payable until the employees were organized. No money was asked or received from the persons at the meeting, but they were invited “to get other girls . . . there to join the union” and blank membership cards were offered for that use. Appellant further explained that the immediate objective was to “have enough cards signed to petition for an election . . . with the Labor Board.”
  On the same day a summons was issued and served by the Chief of Police commanding appellant to appear before the Mayor’s Court three days later to answer “to the offense of Soliciting Members for an Organization without a Permit & License.”
  Before the trial, appellant moved to abate the action upon a number of grounds, among which were the contentions that the ordinance “shows on its face that it is repugnant to and violative of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in that it places a condition precedent upon, and otherwise unlawfully restricts, the defendant’s freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press and freedom of lawful assembly” by requiring, as conditions precedent to the exercise of those rights, the issuance of a “license” which the Mayor and city council are authorized by the ordinance to grant or refuse in their discretion, and the payment of a “license fee” which is discriminatory and unreasonable in amount and constitutes a prohibitory flat tax upon the privilege of soliciting persons to join a labor union. These contentions were overruled by the Mayor’s Court and, after a continuance, the case was tried and appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated. The same contentions were made in the Superior Court where the city answered, denying “that the ordinance is invalid or void for any of the reasons stated” by appellant, and, after a hearing, that court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
  Those contentions were renewed in the Court of Appeals but that court declined "to consider them. It stated that “[t]he attack should have been made against specific sections of the ordinance and not against the ordinance as a whole”; that “[hjaving made no effort to secure a license, the defendant is in no position to claim that any section of the ordinance is invalid or unconstitutional” ; and that since it “appears that the attack was not made against any particular section of the ordinance as being void or unconstitutional, and that the defendant has made no effort to comply with any section of the ordinance ... it is not necessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the ordinance, or any other phase of the case . . . .” The court then held that “[t]he trial court did not err in overruling the writ of certiorari” and affirmed the judgment of conviction. 94 Ga. App., at 24, 93 S. E. 2d, at 378-379.
  At the threshold, appellee urges that this appeal be dismissed because, it argues, the decision of the Court of Appeals was based upon state procedural grounds and thus rests upon an adequate nonfederal basis, and that we are therefore without jurisdiction to entertain it. Hence, the question is whether that basis was an adequate one in the circumstances of this case. “Whether a pleading sets up a sufficient right of action or defense, grounded on the Constitution or a law of the United States, is necessarily a question of federal law; and where a case coming from a state court presents that question, this Court must determine for itself the sufficiency of the allegations displaying the right or defense, and is not concluded by the view taken of them by the state court.” First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341, 346, and cases cited. See also Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania, 296 U. S. 113, 122-123, and Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24, “Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Whether the constitutional rights asserted by the appellant were “. . . given due recognition by the [Court of Appeals] is a question as to which the [appellant is] entitled to invoke our judgment, and this [she has] done in the appropriate way. It therefore is within our province to inquire not only whether the right was denied in express terms, but also whether it was denied in substance and effect, as by putting forward non-federal grounds of decision that were without any fair or substantial support . . . [for] if non-federal grounds, plainly untenable, may be thus put forward successfully, our power to review easily may be avoided.” Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22, and cases cited.
  The first of the nonfederal grounds relied on by appellee, and upon which the decision of the Court of Appeals rests, is that appellant lacked standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance because she made no attempt to secure a permit under it. This is not an adequate nonfederal ground of decision. The decisions of this Court have uniformly held that the failure to apply for a license under an ordinance which on its face violates the Constitution does not preclude review in this Court of a judgment of conviction under such an ordinance. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 562; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452. “The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 602, dissenting opinion, adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U. S. 103, 104.
  Appellee also contends that the holding of the Court of Appeals, that appellant’s failure to attack “specific sections” of the ordinance rendered it unnecessary, under Georgia procedure, “to pass upon . . . the constitutionality of the ordinance, or any other phase of the case . . .,” constitutes an adequate “non-federal ground” to preclude review in this Court. We think this contention is “without any fair or substantial support” (Ward v. Love County, supra) and therefore does not present an adequate nonfederal ground of decision in the circumstances of this case. The several sections of the ordinance are interdependent in their application to one in appellant’s position and constitute but one complete act for the licensing and taxing of her described activities. For that reason, no doubt, she challenged the constitutionality of the whole ordinance, and in her objections used language challenging the constitutional effect of all its sections. She did, thus, challenge all sections of the ordinance, though not by number. To require her, in these circumstances, to count off, one by one, the several sections of the ordinance would be to force resort to an arid ritual of meaningless form. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Georgia seems to have recognized the arbitrariness of such exaltation of form. Only four years ago that court recognized that an attack on such a statute was sufficient if “the [statute] so challenged was invalid in every part for some reason alleged.” Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519, 522, 74 S. E. 2d 461, 464 (1953). In enunciating that rule the court was following a long line of its own decisions. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266, 269, 182 S. E. 15, 16-17 (1935); Miller v. Head, 186 Ga. 694, 708, 198 S. E. 680, 687-688 (1938); Stegall v. Southwest Georgia Regional Housing Authority, 197 Ga. 571, 30 S. E. 2d 196 (1944); Krasner v. Rutledge, 204 Ga. 380, 383, 49 S. E. 2d 864, 866 (1948).
  We conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals does not rest on an adequate nonfederal ground and that we have jurisdiction of this appeal.
  The First Amendment of the Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” This freedom is among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action; and municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action. Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, and cases cited.
  This ordinance in its broad sweep makes it an offense to “solicit” citizens of the City of Baxley to become members of any “organization, union or society” which requires “fees [or] dues” from its members without first applying for and receiving from the Mayor and Council of the City a “permit” (Sections I and II) which they may grant or refuse to grant (Section V) after considering “the character of the applicant, the nature of the . . . organization for which members are desired to be solicited, and its effects upon the general welfare of [the] citizens of the City of Baxley” (Section IV).
  Appellant’s first contention in this Court is that the ordinance is invalid on its face because it makes enjoyment of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech contingent upon the will of the Mayor and Council of the City and thereby constitutes a prior restraint upon, and abridges, that freedom. Believing that appellant is right in that contention and that the judgment must be reversed for that reason, we confine our considerations to that particular question and do not reach other questions presented.
  It will be noted that appellant was not accused of any act against the peace, good order or dignity of the community, nor for any particular thing she said in soliciting employees of the manufacturing company to join the union. She was simply charged and convicted for “soliciting members for an organization without a Permit.” This solicitation, as shown by the evidence, consisted solely of speaking to those employees in their private homes about joining the union.
  It will also be noted that the permit is not to be issued as a matter of course, but only upon the affirmative action of the Mayor and Council of the City. They are expressly authorized to refuse to grant the permit if they do not approve of the applicant or of the union or of the union’s “effects upon the general welfare of citizens of the City of Baxley.” These criteria are without semblance of definitive standards or other controlling guides governing the action of the Mayor and Council in granting or withholding a permit. Cf. Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271-273. It is thus plain that they act in this respect in their uncontrolled discretion.
  It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
  In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, this Court held invalid an Act which proscribed soliciting money or any valuable thing for “any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause” unless the “cause” is approved by the secretary of the public welfare council of the state. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Roberts said:
  “It will be noted, however, that the Act requires an application to the secretary of the public welfare council of the State; that he is empowered to determine whether the cause is a religious one, and that the issue of a certificate depends upon his affirmative action. If he finds that the cause is not that of religion, to solicit for it becomes a crime. He is not to issue a certificate as a matter of course. His decision to issue or refuse it involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion. He is authorized to withhold his approval if he determines that the cause is not a religious one. Such a censorship of religion ... is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. ... [T]o condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.” 310 U. S., at 305, 307.
  To the same effect are Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 451, 452; Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 516; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163, 164; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418, 422; Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103, adopting per curiam on rehearing the dissenting opinion in 316 U. S. 584, 600-602; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293.
  It is undeniable that the ordinance authorized the Mayor and Council of the City of Baxley to grant “or refuse to grant” the required permit in their uncontrolled discretion. It thus makes enjoyment of speech contingent upon the will of the Mayor and Council of the City, although that fundamental right is made free from congressional abridgment by the First Amendment and is protected by the Fourteenth from invasion by state action. For these reasons, the ordinance, on its face, imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint upon the enjoyment of First Amendment freedoms and lays “a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 307. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must fall.
  Reversed.
  “Section I. Before any person or persons, firms or organizations shall solicit membership for any organization, union or society of any sort which requires from its members the payments of membership fees, dues or is entitled to make assessment against its members, such person or persons shall make application in writing to Mayor and Council of the City of Baxley for the issuance of a permit to solicit members in such organization from among the citizens of Baxley.
  “Section II. Such application shall give the name and nature of the organization for which applicant desires to solicit members, whether such organization is incorporated or unincorporated, the location of its principal office and place of business and the names of its officers, along with date of its organization, and its assets and liabilities. Such application shall further cpntain .the age and residence of applicant including places of residence of applicant for past ten years; and as well as business or profession in which such applicant has been engaged during said time, and shall furnish at least three persons as references to applicant’s character. Said application shall also furnish the information as to whether applicant is a salaried employee of the organization for which he is soliciting members, and what compensation, if any, he receives for obtaining members.
  “Section III. This application shall be submitted to a regular meeting of Mayor and Council of City "of Baxley, and in event it is desired by Mayor and Council to investigate further the information given in the application, or in the event the applicant desires a formal hearing on such application, such hearing shall be set for a time not later than the next regular meeting of the Mayor and Council of City of Baxley. At such hearing the applicant may submit for consideration any evidence that he may .desire bearing on the application, and any interested persons shall have the right of appearing and giving evidence to the contrary.
  “Section IV. In passing upon such application the Mayor and Council shall consider the character of the applicant, the nature of the business of the organization for which members are desired to be solicited, and its effects upon the general welfare of citizens of the City of Baxley.
  “Section V. The granting or refusing to grant of such application for a permit shall be determined by vote of Mayor and Council, after consideration and hearing if same is requested by applicant or Mayor and Council, in the same manner as other matters are so granted or denied by the vote of the Mayor and Council.
  “Section VI. In the event that person making application is salaried employee or officer of the organization for which he desires to seek members among the citizens of Baxley, or persons employed in the City of Baxley, or 'received a fee of any sort from the obtaining of such members, he shall be issued a permit and license for soliciting such members upon the payment of $2,000.00 per year. Also $500.00 for each member obtained.
  “Section VII. Any person, persons, firm, or corporation soliciting members for any organization from among the citizens or persons employed in the City of Baxley without first obtaining a permit and license therefor shall be punished as provided by Section 85 of Criminal Code of City of Baxley.
  “Section VIII. All Ordinances of City of Baxley in conflict with [this] ordinance are hereby repealed.
  “Section IX. Should any section or portion of this Ordinance be held void, it shall not affect the remaining sections and portions of same.”
  This reference obviously was to the National Labor Relations Board as Georgia has no comparable agency.
  During that continuance, appellant brought an action in the Superior Court of the county asking an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance and a declaration of its invalidity. The Superior Court found against petitioner and on appeal the Supreme Court of the State affirmed, holding that “If the ordinance is invalid, by reason of its unconstitutionality, or for other cause, such invalidity would be a complete defense to any prosecution that might be instituted for its violation.” Staub v. Mayor of Baxley, 211 Ga. 1, 2, 83 S. E. 2d 606, 608.
  Mamie Merritt was also charged with the same offense and was tried with appellant and was likewise convicted and given the same sentence, but it has been stipulated that the judgment of conviction against her shall await, and conform with, the result of this appeal.
  For that reason we are not here confronted with any question concerning the right of the city to regulate the pursuit of an occupation. Cf. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516.
  The ordinance involved in that case proscribed the distribution of literature in the City of Griffin “without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager . . . ,” which he might grant or withhold in his discretion. 303 U. S., at 447. This Court, in reversing a conviction under that ordinance, said: “Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.” Id., at 452.
  There the ordinance proscribed the leasing of a hall for a public speech or the holding of public meetings “without a permit from the Chief of Police.” 307 U. S., at 501. Members of a labor union sought permission to hold public meetings in the city for the “organization of unorganized workers into labor unions.” Id., at 504. Permission was refused on the ground that such meetings would cause disorder. They then sought and obtained an injunction prohibiting the city from interfering with their rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. The case came here on certiorari and this Court affirmed. In the course of his opinion, Mr. Justice Roberts said the ordinance was “void upon its face” and that “. . . uncontrolled official suppression [of free speech and peaceable assembly] cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right.” Id., at 516.
  There an ordinance of Irvington, New Jersey, in effect banned “communication of any views or the advocacy of any cause from door to door” (308 U. S., at 163), without “a written permit from the Chief of Police . . . .” Id., at 157. This Court held the ordinance invalid as a prior restraint upon First Amendment rights and said that such an ordinance “strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.” Id., at 164.
  This Court said: “The mayor issues a permit only if after thorough investigation he 'deems it proper or advisable.’ Dissemination of ideas depends upon the approval of the distributor by the official. This is administrative censorship in an extreme form. It abridges the freedom of religion, of the press and of speech guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 318 U. S., at 422.
  Chief Justice Stone said: “[H]ere it is the prohibition of publication, save at the uncontrolled will of public officials, which transgresses constitutional limitations and makes the ordinance void on its face.” 316 U. S., at 602.
  There the city allowed use of its park for public meetings, but by custom a permit was required from its park commissioner. A religious group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses scheduled several Bible talks to be held in the city park. They applied for a permit to do so, but it was refused. Later they proceeded to hold such a meeting without a permit and when Niemotko opened the meeting he was arrested and later convicted for disturbing the peace, though the meeting was orderly and the real cause was the failure to have a permit. This Court reversed. After pointing out there were no standards governing the discretion of the park commissioner in granting or refusing such permits and referring to Hague v. C. I. O., supra; Lovell v. Griffin, supra, and other cases, it said: “It is clear that all that has been said about the invalidity of such limitless discretion must be equally applicable here. . . . The right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a local governing body.” 340 U. S., at 272.
  There it was said: “This interpretation allows the police commissioner, an administrative official, to exercise discretion in denying subsequent permit applications [to hold outdoor religious meetings] on the basis of his interpretation, at that time, of what is deemed to be conduct condemned by the ordinance. We have here, then, an ordinance which gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the streets of New York. As such, the ordinance is clearly invalid as a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” 340 U. S., at 293.
choices: Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Federated States of Micronesia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Marshall Islands Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Palau Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming United States Interstate Compact Philippines Indian Dakota