Document: 401 U.S. 23 91 S.Ct. 713 27 L.Ed.2d 657 Application of Martin Robert STOLAR. No. 18. Reargued Oct. 14, 15, 1970. Decided Feb. 23, 1971. Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for petitioner. D. Macklin, Columbus, Ohio, respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK announced the judgment Court and delivered an opinion in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL join. 1 This is second two cases* involving refusal States to admit applicants practice law because they declined answer questions relating their beliefs about government affiliations with organizations suspected advocating overthrow by force. These cases, concern inquisitions loyalty overthrow, are relics a turbulent period known as 'McCarthy era,' drew its name from Senator Joseph McCarthy Wisconsin. We have just referred our Baird v. State Bar Arizona, 1, 702, 639, confusion uncertainty created past cases this constitutional field. The central question all them has been same, whether lawyers, doctors, marine workers, or Federal Government employees, namely: what extent does First Fifth Amendment other provision protect persons against governmental intrusion invasion into private views that not ripened any punishable conduct? Without attempting case bring complete reconciliation previously said particular phase protection, we held under circumstances present there, Mrs. could not, consistently Amendment, be denied state license she refused had belonged Communist Party organization advocated United Here hold Stolar's certain asked him Ohio Committee was also protected Amendment. 2 facts these: Stolar, whose home Rochester, York, A.B. degree University Rochester received LL. Law School 1968. dean school certified Stolar instructions legal ethics, good moral character, sufficient knowledge ability discharge duties attorney at law. He State. To become member Bar, answered following questions, along many others: 3 '18. you participated activities public patriotic nature philanthropic, religious, social services? If so, fully. 4 'I Cub Scout Boy Explorer during elementary high school. 5 fully my Temple's religious education programs until I went college. 6 'In addition, time spent VISTA service above described nature. 7 '19. Do believe principles underlying form States? Yes. 8 '20. party engaged propagating pledged effect changes provided Constitution, advancing interests foreign country? (Emphasis supplied part.) 9 '21. Can conscientiously, do you, affirm, without mental reservation, loyal 10 '24. (a) Have studied Canons Ethics adopted American Association? 11 '(b) unconditionally subscribe same? 12 '(c) Will conscientiously endeavor conform your professional conduct them? Yes.' 13 In 1969 applied admission practice. made available information he given Committee, including his answers stated above. then long series posed committee. response oral interrogation stated: 14 'that now never Party, socialist party, Students Democratic Society, * signed standard Army pre-induction security oath, reference 'Attorney General's List." However, on application grounds infringed rights Amendments. were: 15 '12. been, presently (g) advocates force *. 16 '13. List names addresses clubs, societies member.' 17 '7. since registering student.' 18 Because these one committee who investigated recommended admission. 19 found honest forthright. His statements evidenced commitment principle own sake, unusually great amount awareness, self-interest reprehensible. On basis interview background actually revealed applications no reluctance recommend law.' 20 full petitioner's take examination denied. Supreme approved committee's recommendation opinion. granted certiorari. 396 816, 90 53, 24 67. 21 deal first Ohio's demands petitioner list student those ever member. view requiring applicant impermissible light clear Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 81 247, 231 (1960). At issue Arkansas statute required every teacher, condition employment, file affidavit listing within preceding five years. noted requirement impinged upon teacher's right freedom association it placed 'pressure teacher avoid ties might displease control destiny *.' Id., 486, 251. Similarly here, considered members controversial 'subversive' likely cause delay extensive simply denial Bar. Respondent frankly suggests felt 'espoused illegal aims' would 'investigate further.' students know must survive screening process before practicing profession encouraged future shunning unpopular organizations. Cf. Speiser Randall, 357 513, 78 1332, 1460 (1958). 22 'listing' serves legitimate interest needs himself espoused such aims. But prohibits penalizing denying solely membership organization. supra; cf. Robel, 389 258, 266, 88 419, 424—425, 508 (1967); Keyishian Board Regents, 385 589, 607, 87 675, 685—686, 629 (1967). Nor may penalize personally, suggests, 'espouses aims.' See Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 303—304, 60 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); supra. argues Questions responses direct attention supply relevant qualifications. Undoubtedly determining 'the qualities character competence requisite already standing personal well numerous references enable make necessary investigation determination. Moreover, even though irrelevant fitness law, substantially seeking 7, 12(g), 13. contained included school; address lived; names, addresses, occupations parents; school, principal; nine former employers (which three different firms done summer work); 'criminal record' consisted speeding convictions); people (two whom more than years); previous (e.g., moot court, graduate advisor N.Y.U., Club Scout, temple's programs). conclude require 'member force.' As above, man Since true, can see served sweeps so broadly areas belief invasion. 929 Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 1316, (1964). 25 There word entire record reflects adversely competence. Although there were did simple 'yes' 'no,' Committee's It difficult if impossible how obstructed frustrated failure shows young who, boyhood up, adverse marks except convictions. prying peronal affairs hardly interested only lawyer faithful clients. related associations, both points overt act part possible reason application. Here, applicant's refuse associations. 26 reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent ordered. 28 Reversed remanded. 29 STEWART, concurring judgment. 30 plainly unconstitutional 231. Question 12(g) suffers same deficiency Arizona's 639. For reasons agree us reversed. 31 BLACKMUN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HARLAN, WHITE join, dissenting. 32 case, argued here time, presents another instance well-educated (academic Rochester; University) obviously able person seeks but, least, won terms. acute appealing admitted but finds thwarted like Ohio. decisions Konigsberg 366 36, 997, 105 (1961), re Anastaplo, 82 978, 135 again challenged. 33 plurality set forth pertinent when sought 1968, questions. willing go far specifically profess government, also, specifically, deny was, country. propriety very apparently hesitation seriously questioned subsequently Civil Rights Research Council Wadmond, 299 F.Supp. 117, 130 (S.D.N.Y.1969), affirmed, 154, 720, 749. 34 1969, professing Party. But, although seems include other, flatly refused, grounds, say (Question 12(g)) (Questions 7) 35 assume, purposes. general phrased list-your-organizations inquiries, is, improper Court's holding, five-to-four vote, (1960), despite presence me somewhat significant difference between nontenured teachers about-to-be-licensed attorneys. assumption, however, terminate specific inquiry force, remains considered. 36 My position respect respond dissent U.S., p. 11, S.Ct., 708, detailed repetition here. note inconsistency willingness orally unwillingness writing, (b) that, again, membership, past, kind specified, context, itself conclusive concedes, Arizona Baird, significance lies something mere membership. 37 Neither am content conclusion reached 1968 should suffice 1969. That reasoning compel State, surely reach frontier day some new yet undeveloped concept, doubt yet. York's range her area differ Ohio's, each constitutionallly permissible. Further, true Time passes place few months. 38 readily concede (just Baird) better phrased, approach reversal feel, unrealistic. past. knowing participate forceful destruction government. crux. forestall threshold stultifies appropriate adherence lawyer's trust vest fiduciary power seek entrance bar. 39 record, affirm. 40 49, dissenting Nos. 41 joining STEWART's Wadmond 749, BLACKMUN's opinions 18, 640 31, 717, 658, constrained add remarks.* 42 Brother BLACK's announcing judgments easily leave impression involved professionally qualified candidates so-called subversive organizations, irrespective born purely philosophical cast mind purpose engage action, least trying discourage prospective latter respect, MARSHALL's opinion, U.S, 185, 737, lend similar interpretation. anything records fairly taken pointing either conclusion, 'reversing' side cases. records, adumbrated representations responsible lawyers appeared States, belie inferences. They show cerify deliberately, albeit faith, assist Bar-admission authorities 'fitness' investigations declining questionnaires. 43 anyone dispute State's avowed shown possess dedication overthrowing authority supplanting rule incitement individual group violence best means attaining desired goals. One efficacy wisdom questionnaires weeding out occasional misfits run candidates, criticize unduly complicated pervasive aspects And understanding considerations age breed lawsuits these. nonetheless care lest indulging lead warped decision. 44 course chosen cannot forbidden Constitution. consider 'less drastic means' test NAACP Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 288, 307—308, 1302, 1313—1314, 325 (1964), cited therein, suffices justify assuming oversight investigatory procedures admissions. think questioning violent necessarily runs afoul concerns. reflected Fourteenth, prevents merely theoretical 'right' revolution, maintain barrier entry doing away orderly processes temperate regard, permissible end. little short chimerical suggest independence threatened unless steps puts end Bates Little Rock, 361 516, 80 412, 480 (1960); Barenblatt 360 109, 79 1081, 1115 (1959). 45 While hope less sensitive others values, supervision over work most extravagant expansion current 'chilling effects' doctrine. Knowing importance attaches lawyer, will promptly gain straightforwardly inquiries put ado. greatly surprised mistaken develop excluded unorthodox beliefs, enough intervene. supra, petitioners assert claims self-incrimination, today's treated terms considerations, too shall proceed basis.

Category: 2