In re Anastaplo

Last updated
In re Anastaplo
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided April 24, 1961
Full case nameIn re Anastaplo
Citations366 U.S. 82 ( more )
Holding
Denying a bar applicant's character and fitness because they would not answer questions about membership in the Communist Party did not violate the applicant's rights.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker  · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan
DissentBlack, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan

In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that denying a bar applicant's character and fitness because they would not answer questions about membership in the Communist Party did not violate the applicant's rights. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

During a hearing with the Committee on Character and Fitness required for George Anastaplo to join the Illinois State Bar Association and become a lawyer, the committee asked Anastaplo whether he was a member of the Communist Party. Anastaplo refused to answer because he felt the question violated his freedom of speech and association, and his application was denied for interference with the Committee's questioning. Anastaplo appealed and a court ruled that the question was proper, so Anastaplo received a second hearing in which the Committee asked him again. Anastaplo refused to answer a second time for the same reason. [1]

Supreme Court

When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the decision to deny him membership in the Bar because refusing to answer a "material" question from the Committee on Character and Fitness was a reason to deny someone membership to the Bar on its own. For that matter, when Anastaplo asserted that the question was arbitrary and discriminatory, the Court replied that the application of the rule regarding refusals to answer specific questions was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. [1]

There was never any evidence that Anastaplo was a member of the Communist Party, but this was immaterial to the Court. The Court described the question as one posed in good faith to determine if Anastaplo had the moral character appropriate of a lawyer, so it was fine whether the Committee knew him to be a member or came up with the question arbitrarily. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Admission to the bar in the United States</span> Registration to practice law in a US jurisdiction

Admission to the bar in the United States is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in the jurisdiction. Each U.S. state and jurisdiction has its own court system and sets its own rules and standards for bar admission. In most cases, a person is admitted or called to the bar of the highest court in the jurisdiction and is thereby authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction. Federal courts, although often overlapping in admission standards with states, set their own requirements.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment rights.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that groups could sue to challenge their inclusion on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. The decision was fractured on its reasoning, with each of the Justices in the majority writing separate opinions.

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.

The Louisiana Bar Exam is a three-day-long bar examination used to determine whether a candidate is qualified to practice law in the state of Louisiana. It is the longest bar exam in the United States, consisting of 21 hours of examination on nine topic areas. To sit for the exam, an applicant must graduate from an ABA-accredited law school and be deemed of good moral character.

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States, and until 1976 in Canada, that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century. Moral turpitude laws typically deal with legal, judicial, and business related transgressions. Moral turpitude laws should not be confused with laws regarding social morality, violations of which are more commonly called public order, morality, decency, and/or vice crimes.

Doris Brin "Dobby" Walker Roberson was an American labor lawyer and founding partner with Robert Treuhaft at the firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.

The Oregon State Bar (OSB) is a public corporation and instrumentality of the Oregon Judicial Department in the U.S. state of Oregon. Founded in 1890 as the private Oregon Bar Association, it became a public entity in 1935 that regulates the legal profession. The public corporation is part of the Oregon Judicial Department.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to First Amendment free speech rights. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between the constitutionally protected substantive due process freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad.

Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure membership in subversive organizations. Due process requires that individuals have scienter, and the Oklahoma statute did not accommodate this requirement.

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling, and also overturned certain laws enacted by the state of Virginia in 1956 as part of the Stanley Plan and massive resistance, as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The statutes struck down by the Supreme Court had expanded the definitions of the traditional common law crimes of champerty and maintenance, as well as barratry, and had been targeted at the NAACP and its civil rights litigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders</span> U.S. federal prosecutions, 1949–1958

The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders in New York City from 1949 to 1958 were the result of US federal government prosecutions in the postwar period and during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party. Appeals from these trials reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on issues in Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Anastaplo</span> American law professor (1925–2014)

George Anastaplo was a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and author who was famously denied admission for many years to the Illinois Bar. The denial of his admission became a Supreme Court case, In re Anastaplo, in which he insisted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of political affiliations, specifically, his refusal to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party. Anastaplo's stand was based on constitutional principles and his consequent rejection of McCarthyism, and nobody alleged that he had been a member of the Communist Party. The Supreme Court's majority upheld the lower courts' ruling in favor of the Illinois Bar, with Justice Hugo Black dissenting. After his Supreme Court case and denial of admission to the Bar, Anastaplo supported his family by teaching at the University of Chicago and other universities and colleges. He wrote many articles and books on philosophy, many of which acknowledged the influence of his teacher, Leo Strauss.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

<i>Hale v. Committee on Character and Fitness for the State of Illinois</i>

Hale v. Committee on Character and Fitness for the State of Illinois, 335 F.3d 678, was a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the court refused on procedural grounds to disturb the Illinois Committee on Character of Fitness's denial of a license to practice law to Matthew F. Hale, on the ground that he lacked the moral character and fitness to practice law.

Maurice Braverman (1916–2002) was a 20th-century American civil rights lawyer and some-time Communist Party member who was convicted in 1952 under the Smith Act, served 28 of 36 months, then immediately faced disbarment, against which he fought in the 1970s and won reinstatement in Maryland (1974) and federal courts (1975).

Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held in a plurality decision that the Self-incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applied even to attorneys in a state bar association under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5–4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice Abe Fortas who wrote a special concurring opinion on the matter. This case directly overruled Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82 (1961).
  2. Lieberman, Jethro K. (1999). "Communism and the Communist Party". A Practical Companion to the Constitution. p. 109.