Full Breakdown
Pennsylvania’s 19th-Century Fortune-Telling Law Faces a Constitutional Challenge
7/10/2026, 2:35:03 PM
The Legal Battle Begins
In August 2024, Beck Ravenswood, proprietor of The Serpent’s Key Shoppe and Sanctuary in Hanover, filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Hanover Borough and Police Chief Chad Martin. The complaint alleges that Pennsylvania’s antiquated fortune-telling statute—making it a misdemeanor to “pretend for gain or lucre” when telling fortunes—violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ravenswood seeks a declaration that the law is facially and as-applied unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
Historical Roots of the Statute
Enacted in the nineteenth century, the statute criminalizes compensated divination with penalties of up to one year in jail and fines of up to $2,500. The law was originally intended to curb fraud, but it remains on the books despite modern challenges to its relevance.
Key Players
- Beck Ravenswood – owner of The Serpent’s Key, plaintiff asserting free-speech and religious-freedom rights.
- Chief Chad Martin – Hanover police chief who warned Ravenswood that paid tarot readings could breach the statute.
- Hanover Borough – municipal defendant accused of enforcing the law.
- Pennsylvania General Assembly – considering House Bill 1562, a proposal to repeal the statute entirely.
Legislative Landscape Nationwide
Pennsylvania is not alone. Oklahoma prohibits charging for “pretending or professing to tell fortunes.” Wisconsin’s vagrancy-era language still includes fortune tellers, and New York criminalizes paid fortune-telling while exempting pure entertainment. Municipalities in Maryland, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, and other states have faced litigation over similar bans, and cities such as Norfolk (Virginia), Petoskey (Michigan), and Dickson (Tennessee) have recently repealed or substantially revised their restrictions.
Data & Penalties
- Statutory maximum: 1 year incarceration, $2,500 fine.
- Comparable statutes: Oklahoma, Wisconsin, New York retain misdemeanor provisions; many municipalities impose costly licensing or background-check regimes that function as de-facto bans.
Why It Matters
The case sits at the intersection of protected speech, economic liberty, and religious practice. Tarot reading is central to Ravenswood’s spiritual tradition, and the statute’s enforcement threatens both livelihood and the free exercise of belief. A successful challenge could set a precedent for overturning a class of outdated “fraud” laws that target specific spiritual practices.
Official Statements & Responses
Ravenswood’s filing argues that the law is “unconstitutionally vague, lacks a rational governmental basis, and interferes with an individual’s ability to earn a living through constitutionally protected activity.” House Bill 1562, introduced in 2025, contends that the statute “violates First Amendment protections by criminalizing divination performed ‘for gain or lucre,’” language critics label “antiquated and overly broad.”
Criticism & Opposition
Legal scholars and civil-rights groups criticize the statute as a relic that singles out divination while permitting predictive speech such as weather forecasts or entertainment performances. Municipal reform advocates point to recent repeals as evidence that the law would likely not survive constitutional scrutiny.
On-the-Ground Impact
Ravenswood reports that the police chief’s warning produced an “immediate chilling effect” on both the shop’s business and its spiritual practice, forcing the owner to suspend paid tarot readings pending the lawsuit’s outcome.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
No court ruling has yet been issued, and the Pennsylvania legislature has not voted on House Bill 1562. Consequently, the ultimate fate of the statute—whether through judicial invalidation, legislative repeal, or continued enforcement—remains unresolved.
Verbatim Quotes
- “We did sue under First Amendment guarantees, and this absolutely is an issue of religious freedom,” — Beck Ravenswood, Plaintiff
- “However, in terms of argument in a court setting, the claims we have presented are more likely to overturn this law and officially legalize the practice of fortune telling.” — Beck Ravenswood, Plaintiff
- “According to Ravenswood, the proposed legislation argues that the existing law violates First Amendment protections by criminalizing divination performed “for gain or lucre,” language that critics say is both antiquated and overly broad.” — House Bill 1562 (legislative text)
- “Applicants must obtain a permit from the San Francisco Police Department, undergo fingerprinting and a background investigation, and comply with licensing requirements intended to prevent fraud and protect consumers rather than prohibit divination outright.” — San Francisco Police Department regulations
