Torcaso v. Watkins
367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot require a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for holding public office, as such a requirement violates the freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts:
- Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution required a declaration of belief in the existence of God as a qualification for any state office of profit or trust.
- The Governor of Maryland appointed Roy R. Torcaso to the office of Notary Public.
- Torcaso was required to declare his belief in God before he could receive his official commission.
- Torcaso refused to make such a declaration.
- As a result of his refusal, Maryland state officials refused to issue his commission, barring him from serving as a Notary Public.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy R. Torcaso brought an action in a Maryland Circuit Court (trial court) to compel the issuance of his commission as Notary Public.
- The Circuit Court rejected Torcaso's federal constitutional claims.
- Torcaso, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the state constitutional requirement.
- Torcaso, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 requiring a public officeholder to declare a belief in the existence of God violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes, the Maryland constitutional provision violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reaffirmed the principle from Everson v. Board of Education that neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid all religions as against non-believers, nor can they aid religions based on a belief in God as against those founded on different beliefs. The Maryland provision establishes a religious test that unconstitutionally puts the state's power and authority on the side of those who believe in God, thereby invading an individual's freedom of belief and religion. The argument that Torcaso is not compelled to hold office is not a valid excuse for barring him from office using criteria forbidden by the Constitution.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan
These justices concurred in the result but did not write a separate opinion explaining their reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the scope of the Establishment Clause, extending its protections to non-believers and adherents of non-theistic religions. By striking down a state-mandated religious test for public office, the Court established that government neutrality requires non-preferential treatment not only among different religions but also between religion and non-religion. The case solidifies the principle that freedom of belief is absolute and cannot be infringed upon by conditioning public benefits, such as holding office, on the profession of a particular religious belief.
