Document: 367 U.S. 488 81 S.Ct. 1680 6 L.Ed.2d 982 Roy R. TORCASO, Appellant,v.Clayton K. WATKINS, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, Messrs. Leo Pfeffer, New York City, and Lawrence Speiser, Washington, D.C. (Messrs. Joseph A. Sickles, Carlton D.C., Bruce N. Goldberg, Bethesda, Md., Rowland Watts, Baltimore, George Kaufmann, on brief), appellant. Thomas B. Finan, Cumberland, S. Kaufman, Md. C. Ferdinand Sybert, Ellicott Stedman Prescott, Jr., Silver Springs, appellee. Herbert Wolff Rosen, American Ethical Union. Ehrmann, Boston, Mass., Laurence Peirez, Woodside, N.Y., Isaac G. McNatt, Abraham Blumberg, Arnold Forster, Paul Hartman, Theodore Leskes, Edwin J. Lukas Sol Robkin, Jewish Committee ad others, amici curiae. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 Article 37 Declaration Rights Maryland Constitution provides: 2 '(N)o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification any office profit or trust in this State, other than declaration belief existence God * *.' 3 The appellant Torcaso was appointed Notary Public by Governor but refused commission serve because he would not declare his God. He then brought action compel issuance commission, charging that State's requirement violated 'the First Fourteenth Amendments United States *.'1 rejected these federal constitutional contentions, highest court Appeals, affirmed,2 holding state provision is self-executing requires without need implementing legislation. case therefore properly here appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 4 There is, can be, no dispute about purpose effect before us—it sets up which designed and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses from public 'office trust' power authority State thus put side one particular sort believers—those are willing say they believe God.' It true there much historical precedent such laws. Indeed, it largely escape oaths declarations great many early colonists left Europe came hoping worship their own way. soon developed, however, those had fled turned out perfectly willing, when do so, force dissenters faith take conformity with faith. This host laws Colonies imposing burdens disabilities various kinds upon varied beliefs depending what group happened politically strong enough legislate favor its beliefs. all formal practical 'establishment' faiths most Colonies, consequent imposed free exercise nonfavored believers.3 5 were, wise farseeing men too mention—who spoke against philosophy intolerance behind them. One these, so happens, Calvert (the first Lord Baltimore), took important part original establishment Colony Catholic had, reason, felt compelled conscience refuse Oath Supremacy England at cost resigning high governmental office. again oath demanded Council Virginia, result denied settlementi n Colony.4 A recent historian period Maryland's life has said Calvert's hope establish colonial government persecutions known—one 'securely beyond reach *.'5 When our adopted, desire people reach' inclusion VI document 'no Test shall Qualification Office Trust States.' supports accuracy observation Girouard v. States, 328 61, 69, 66 826, 829, 90 L.Ed. 1084, '(t)he abhorrent tradition.' Not satisfied, guarantees Constituion, Congress proposed very shortly thereafter adopted Bill Rights, including Amendment.6 That Amendment broke new ground protection sought afford freedom religion, speech, press, petition assembly. Since prior cases have thoroughly explored documented history Amendment, reasons it, scope protects, we cover again.7 What think controls decision here. 7 In Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 303—304, 60 900, 903, 84 1213, said: 8 'The declares make law respecting an religion prohibiting thereof. rendered legislatures states incompetent enact *. Thus embraces two concepts,—freedom act. absolute but, nature things, second cannot be.' 9 Later decided Everson Board Education, 330 1, pages 15 16, 67 504, page 511, this: 10 'establishment religion' clause means least Neither nor Federal Government set church. pass aid religions, prefer over another. influence go remain away church will him profess disbelief religion. No punished entertaining professing disbeliefs, attendance non-attendance. tax amount, large small, levied support activities institutions, whatever may called, form adopt teach practice can, openly secretly, participate affairs organizations groups vice versa. words Jefferson, intended erect 'a wall separation between State." 11 While were dissents case, did challenge Court's interpretation Amendment's coverage being broad, thought applying narrowly facts case. long afterward, Illinois ex rel. McCollum 333 203, 68 461, 92 648, urged repudiate dicta above-quoted coverage. We declined this, instead strongly reaffirmed been Everson, calling attention fact both majority minority agreed principles declared opinion. And concurring McCollum, written Frankfurter joined dissenters, 12 'We secular far more penetrating conduct merely forbid 'established church.' renew conviction 'we staked country complete best religion."8 13 Appeals thought, argued here, later Zorach Clauson, 343 306, 72 679, 96 954, repudiated statement quoted above previously McCollum. But specifically stated: follow case.' 315, 684. Nothing lends idea open way government, federal, restore historically constitutionally discredited policy probing limiting offices persons have, perhaps some kind concept.9 14 repeat reaffirm neither 'to religion.' impose requirements religions non-believers,10 based founded different beliefs.11 upholding (223 49, 162 A.2d 442): 16 petitioner disbelieve, threat punishment compulsion. True, unless makes hold Maryland, office.' 17 fact, possibly excuse barring state-imposed criteria forbidden Constitution. settled Wieman Updegraff, 344 183, 73 215, 219, 97 216. pointed whether 'an abstract right employment exists,' could providing "* employee attend Mass active missionary work."12 18 unconstitutionally invades appellant's enforced him. 19 judgment accordingly reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent 20 Reversed remanded. 21 FRANKFURTER HARLAN concur result. Appellant also claimed violates Art. Because reversing grounds, find unnecessary consider contention applies well offices. 223 438. Appellant's alternative courts. See, e.g., I Stokes, Church 358—446. See cited, note 7, infra. letter Virginia King's Privy Hanley, Their Liberties (Newman Press 1959), 65, follows: 'According instructions your Lordship usual course held place, tendered supremacy allegiance (;) (Baltimore) followers, making profession Romish Religion, utterly same. His offered oath, copy whereof included imagine latitude us decline prescribed form, strictly exacted justified defended pen late sovereign, King James happy memory. Among blessings favors bound bless none whereby hath made Religion papists suffered settle abode amongst us. *' Of Madison's Memorial Remonstrance enactment famous Religious Liberty, discussed 11—13, 509—510, 91 711. op. cit., supra, p. 65. 'Congress thereof; abridging press; peaceably assemble, redress grievances.' opinions dissenting Reynolds 98 145, 25 244; Davis Beason, 133 333, 299, 33 637; 1213; West Bd. Education Barnette, 319 624, 63 1178, 87 1628; Fowler Rhode Island, 345 67, 526, 828; 711; 648; McGowan 366 420, 1101, 1153, 1218, 393. 213, 232, 466. Later, 322, 688, stated dissent received unanimous acceptance Court, only single vote.' letters Landholder,' published December 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, member Constitutional Convention Chief among arguments fol owing statement: 'In short, test-laws ineffectual: security all; loose will, external compliance, evade If exclude persons, honest men, principle, rather suffer injury, act contrary dictates consciences. Quoted Ford, Essays 170. Elliott, Debates Several Conventions Adoption Constitution, 193. discussing debate North Carolina adoption Iredell, '* (I)t objected America may, perhaps, choose representatives all, pagans Mahometans admitted into how possible taking principle ourselves warmly contend for?' another delegate 'leaves solid foundation inherent validity, connection temporal authority; oppression place.' Elliot, 194, 200. generally considered Buddhism, Taoism, Culture, Secular Humanism others. Washington Society District Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship Humanity County Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia Social Sciences 293; Britannica (1957 ed.) 325 327; id., 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised Purinton), 120—138, 254—313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book Churches 1961, 29, 47. 191—192, quoting Workers (C.I.O.) Mitchell, 75, 100, 556, 570, 754.

Category: 2