In Re Anastaplo
6 L. Ed. 2d 135, 366 U.S. 82, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1268 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may deny an applicant admission to the bar for refusing to answer questions material to their character and fitness, including inquiries about membership in the Communist Party, as the state's interest in ensuring the qualifications of its attorneys outweighs the applicant's First Amendment rights of free speech and association.
Facts:
- George Anastaplo, an instructor and military veteran, passed the Illinois bar examination.
- On his application, when asked to state the principles of the U.S. Constitution, Anastaplo included a reference to the people's 'right... to alter or to abolish' a government that becomes destructive of their rights, paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence.
- During his interview with the Illinois Committee on Character and Fitness, Anastaplo's statement on the right of revolution was questioned.
- The Committee proceeded to ask Anastaplo if he was a member of the Communist Party.
- Anastaplo refused to answer questions about his political affiliations, specifically his potential membership in the Communist Party, on First Amendment grounds.
- The Committee had received numerous affidavits and statements from professors, lawyers, and associates attesting to Anastaplo's excellent moral character, integrity, and patriotism.
- The Committee acknowledged it had no derogatory information about Anastaplo from any outside source and no evidence connecting him to any subversive group.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1954, after the Committee on Character and Fitness refused to certify him, the Illinois Supreme Court (state's highest court) denied George Anastaplo's application for admission to the bar.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied Anastaplo's petition for a writ of certiorari in 1955.
- In 1957, Anastaplo sought a rehearing, which the Committee denied but the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the Committee to conduct.
- Following the rehearing, the Committee on Character and Fitness again voted to decline certification for Anastaplo.
- Anastaplo sought review from the Illinois Supreme Court, which confirmed the Committee's report and refusal to certify him.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the second judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court.
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's denial of admission to the bar to an applicant, based solely on the applicant's refusal to answer questions regarding membership in the Communist Party, violate the applicant's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
No, a state's denial of admission to the bar based on an applicant's refusal to answer material questions about potential Communist Party membership does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held, consistent with its decision in Konigsberg v. State Bar, that a state has a legitimate and substantial interest in determining the qualifications of bar applicants. Questions regarding Communist Party membership are material to assessing an applicant's fitness and loyalty to constitutional principles. The state's interest in conducting a full inquiry outweighs any deterrent effect on the applicant's First Amendment rights of speech and association. It is constitutionally irrelevant whether the state's inquiry is prompted by existing evidence or arises from a good faith need for exploratory questioning. Anastaplo was fairly warned of the consequences of his refusal, and the denial of his application was based on his obstruction of the Committee's investigation, not as a punishment for his political views.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes, denying a bar applicant admission for refusing to answer questions about his political associations and beliefs violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment provides absolute protection against governmental inquiry into an individual's thoughts and associations. Anastaplo is an applicant of unimpeachable character and patriotism, supported by overwhelming evidence. The Committee's inquiry was illegitimately triggered by Anastaplo's expression of a core American principle from the Declaration of Independence—the right of revolution. The majority's 'balancing test' is a doctrine of governmental absolutism that almost inevitably destroys individual liberty when weighed against state interests. This decision will degrade the legal profession by forcing it to become a group of 'thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals' rather than one populated by people of courage and principle.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the state's denial of admission violates the applicant's constitutional rights. The judgment should be reversed for the reasons stated in Justice Black's dissent and on the authority of Speiser v. Randall, as argued in the dissent in the companion case, Konigsberg v. State Bar. The state unconstitutionally placed the burden on the applicant to prove his loyalty and fitness in a way that infringes on First Amendment freedoms.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Konigsberg, solidified the Supreme Court's 'balancing' approach in First Amendment cases involving national security concerns during the Cold War. It grants state bar admission committees significant power to investigate the political associations of applicants, even without prior evidence of wrongdoing. By prioritizing the state's interest in ensuring the loyalty of its lawyers over an individual's rights of association and speech, the ruling established a precedent that could chill political expression and dissent among those aspiring to join the legal profession. The case exemplifies the tension between individual liberties and state power during a period of heightened political anxiety.
