In Re Griffiths

Supreme Court of the United States
1973 U.S. LEXIS 35, 413 U.S. 717, 37 L. Ed. 2d 910 (1973)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state's requirement that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the United States violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.

Facts:

Fre Le Poole Griffiths, a citizen of the Netherlands, moved to the United States in 1965.
In 1967, she married a U.S. citizen and became a permanent resident of Connecticut.
After graduating from law school in the United States, Griffiths applied for permission to take the Connecticut bar examination in 1970.
The Connecticut County Bar Association found her qualified in all respects, such as character and education.
However, the Bar Association refused to allow her to take the examination solely because she was not a U.S. citizen, as required by Rule 8(1) of the Connecticut Practice Book.

Procedural Posture:

Fre Le Poole Griffiths sought judicial relief in the Connecticut Superior Court (a state trial court), asserting the citizenship requirement was unconstitutional.
The Superior Court rejected her claim.
Griffiths appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the citizenship rule.
Griffiths (appellant) then appealed the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.

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 rule that requires applicants for admission to the bar to be citizens of the United States violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Powell

Yes, the rule violates the Equal Protection Clause. A state's use of a suspect classification like alienage must withstand strict scrutiny, which requires the state to show that the classification is necessary to accomplish a substantial state interest. While Connecticut has a substantial interest in ensuring the high qualifications of its lawyers, it has failed to demonstrate that excluding all resident aliens is a necessary means to achieve that interest. The state's arguments—that a lawyer's role as an 'officer of the court' involves government functions or that aliens may have divided loyalties—are unconvincing and not narrowly tailored. The state has other, less restrictive means, such as individual character assessments and oaths, to ensure an applicant's fitness to practice law.

Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger

No, the rule does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The power to regulate professions, including the practice of law, is a power reserved to the states. The majority denigrates the important role of a lawyer as an 'officer of the court,' which provides a rational basis for the state's citizenship requirement. A state is entitled to conclude that individuals who owe their first loyalty to the United States will better understand and apply American legal traditions and concepts of justice than those who decline to accept the burdens of citizenship.

Analysis:

This case solidified the application of strict scrutiny to classifications based on alienage, extending the principle from Graham v. Richardson (which involved welfare benefits) to the field of professional licensing. The decision significantly limited a state's ability to create broad, categorical exclusions of resident aliens from professions, requiring instead individualized assessments of fitness. By rejecting the argument that a lawyer is a state 'office holder' for Equal Protection purposes, the Court ensured that states must justify such discrimination with a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means, rather than relying on generalized assumptions about an alien's loyalty or character.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Griffiths (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"