Cummings v. Missouri
71 U.S. 277 (1867)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that requires individuals to take a retrospective oath regarding past conduct to qualify for a profession, and thereby deprives them of their livelihood for that past conduct, is a form of punishment that violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibitions on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
Facts:
- Following the Civil War, the State of Missouri adopted a new constitution in 1865.
- The constitution required individuals in various professions, including clergymen, teachers, and lawyers, to take an oath known as the 'Ironclad Oath'.
- The oath required the affiant to swear they had never engaged in over thirty different acts, such as being in armed hostility against the U.S., manifesting sympathy for its enemies, or leaving the state to avoid the military draft.
- John A. Cummings was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church in Missouri.
- Cummings continued to teach and preach as a priest without taking the required oath, in defiance of the constitutional provision.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Missouri indicted John A. Cummings in a Missouri circuit court (a court of first instance) for the crime of preaching without having taken the oath.
- Cummings was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and be committed to jail until it was paid.
- Cummings, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- Cummings then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state constitutional provision that bars individuals from practicing their professions unless they take a retrospective oath, swearing they never committed certain past acts of disloyalty, violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibitions on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
Yes. The state constitutional provision is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and ex post facto law. Depriving a person of the right to practice a lawful profession is a punishment, not merely a qualification, especially when the required oath has no bearing on fitness for that profession. As a bill of attainder, the provision acts as a legislative punishment against a class of people without the safeguards of a judicial trial, assuming their guilt. As an ex post facto law, it imposes new punishment for past acts that were not punishable when committed, or adds new punishment to acts that were already offenses. The Constitution's protections cannot be evaded by disguising a punishment as a qualification.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Miller
The Chief Justice and Justices Swayne, Davis, and Miller dissented. The dissenting opinion was not published with this case but was instead published in the related case of Ex parte Garland.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the definition of 'punishment' under the Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Clauses to include civil deprivations, such as the right to practice a profession. It established that these constitutional prohibitions cannot be circumvented by labeling a punitive measure as a 'qualification.' The ruling was critical in limiting the power of state and federal governments to punish former Confederates and their sympathizers through loyalty oaths after the Civil War, thereby protecting individual rights against legislative overreach during periods of intense political passion.
Unlock the full brief for Cummings v. Missouri