United States v. Schwimmer

Last updated

United States v. Schwimmer
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 12, 1929
Decided May 27, 1929
Full case nameUnited States v. Rosika Schwimmer
Citations279 U.S. 644 ( more )
49 S. Ct. 448; 73 L. Ed. 889; 1929 U.S. LEXIS 64
Holding
Pacifists are liable to be incapable of the attachment for and devotion to the principles of the U.S. Constitution that is required of aliens seeking naturalization.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland  · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford  · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
MajorityButler, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Stone
DissentHolmes, joined by Brandeis
DissentSanford
Laws applied
Naturalization Act of 1906
Overruled by
Girouard v. United States (1946)

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.

Contents

Details

Rosika Schwimmer was a pacifist who would not take the oath of allegiance to become a naturalized citizen. She was born in Hungary and in the United States, she delivered a lecture and decided that she wanted to become a U.S. citizen. When asked if she would be willing to "take up arms in defense of her country," she responded in the negative. She stated that she believed in the democratic ideal, but she asserted that she was an uncompromising pacifist: "My cosmic consciousness of belonging to the human family is shared by all those who believe that all human beings are the children of God."

Court decision

The Court held in a 6–3 decision that citizenship should be denied.

Quotes from the majority opinion by Justice Butler

The government has established statutes regulating who can become naturalized citizens because of the benefits it brings. "Because of the great value of the privileges conferred by naturalization, the statutes prescribing qualifications and governing procedure for admission are to be construed with definite purpose to favor and support the government. And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications." The Court accepts the importance the government has assigned to being able to compel military service of its citizens if necessary. "And their opinions and beliefs as well as their behavior indicating a disposition to hinder in the performance of that duty are subjects of inquiry under the statutory provisions governing naturalization and are of vital importance, for if all or a large number of citizens oppose such defense the 'good order and happiness' of the United States cannot long endure." The pacifism that Schwimmer professes may hinder her ability to develop the nationalism that the country attempts to foster. The reason for her pacifism is immaterial because she is not yet a citizen who possesses the rights of citizenship that allow for conscientious objection.

Quotes from the dissenting opinion by Justice Holmes (Justice Brandeis concurring)

Surely it cannot show lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution that she thinks that it can be improved. I suppose that most intelligent people think that it might be.

Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thoughtnot free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

I would suggest that the Quakers have done their share to make the country what it is, that many citizens agree with the applicant's belief and that I had not supposed hitherto that we regretted our inability to expel them because they believed more than some of us do in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

Significance

The Court placed great emphasis on the interest of the state to foster feelings of nationalism even though the nationalist beliefs of the country may have some conflict with religious beliefs. The case is best known, however, for Justice Holmes's phrase concerning "freedom for the thought that we hate," which has become a favorite statement of the underlying principles of free speech embodied in the First Amendment.

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pacifism</span> Philosophy opposing war or violence

Pacifism is the opposition or resistance to war, militarism or violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. A related term is ahimsa, which is a core philosophy in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While modern connotations are recent, having been explicated since the 19th century, ancient references abound.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conscientious objector</span> Person refusing military service on moral grounds

A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of conscience or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rosika Schwimmer</span> Hungarian-born activist

Rosika Schwimmer was a Hungarian-born pacifist, feminist, world federalist and women's suffragist. A co-founder of the Campaign for World Government with Lola Maverick Lloyd, her radical vision of world peace led to the creation of several world federalist movements and organizations. Sixty years after she first envisaged it, the movement she helped to create indeed took a leading role in the creation of the International Criminal Court, the first permanent international tribunal tasked with charging individuals with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath of Allegiance (United States)</span> Official oath of allegiance in the U.S

The Oath of Allegiance of the United States is the official oath of allegiance that must be taken and subscribed by every immigrant who wishes to become a United States citizen.

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled that a government program requiring the use of a social security number did not violate the first amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naturalization Act of 1790</span> United States federal law

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person(s) ... of good character". This eliminated ambiguity on how to treat newcomers, given that free black people had been allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. In reading the Naturalization Act, the courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigrants from citizenship until the decision Ex Parte Mohriez recognized citizenship for a Saudi Muslim man in 1944.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian pacifism</span> Theological and ethical position

Christian pacifism is the theological and ethical position according to which pacifism and non-violence have both a scriptural and rational basis for Christians, and affirms that any form of violence is incompatible with the Christian faith. Christian pacifists state that Jesus himself was a pacifist who taught and practiced pacifism and that his followers must do likewise. Notable Christian pacifists include Martin Luther King Jr., Leo Tolstoy, Adin Ballou, Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, and brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), was a 5–3 United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a law that stripped naturalized Americans of their citizenship as a result of extended or permanent residence abroad. Relying on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the court ruled it generally was unconstitutional to treat naturalized and natural-born citizens differently.

Douglas Clyde Macintosh (1877–1948) was a Canadian theologian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizenship of the United States</span> Legal status in the U.S.

Citizenship of the United States is a legal status that entails Americans with specific rights, duties, protections, and benefits in the United States. It serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as freedom of expression, due process, the rights to vote, live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance.

In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.

Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to fight for the defense of the United States. The case questioned a precedent set by United States v. Schwimmer in 1929 that denied an applicant entry to the United States because of her pacifist stance. Girouard v. United States overturned that precedent by voting in favor of James Girouard's religious freedom through allowing him to uphold his Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone died the day of the decision.

Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas without restriction. Viewed as an integral component of a democratic society, intellectual freedom protects an individual's right to access, explore, consider, and express ideas and information as the basis for a self-governing, well-informed citizenry. Intellectual freedom comprises the bedrock for freedoms of expression, speech, and the press and relates to freedoms of information and the right to privacy.

<i>Freedom for the Thought That We Hate</i> 2007 non-fiction book

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alma Dolens</span> Italian pacifist, journalist, and feminist

Teresita Pasini, better known by her pseudonym Alma Dolens, was a prominent Italian pacifist, suffragist, and journalist. "Alma Dolens" is a combination of the Latin alma meaning "soul" or "heart" with the Latin participle dolens meaning "pained" or "grieving"; the name can thus be translated as "sorrowful heart" or "heavy heart", and is thought to refer to her feelings surrounding militarism and war.

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.