Case Name: UNITED STATES v. BLAND
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1931-05-25
Citations: 283 U.S. 636
Docket Number: No. 505
Parties: UNITED STATES v. BLAND.
Judges: Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone concur in this opinion.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 283
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. BLAND.
No. 505.
Argued April 27, 28, 1931.
Decided May 25, 1931.
Solicitor General Thacker, with whom Assistant Attorney General Dodds and Messrs. *Whitney North Seymour and Harry S. Ridgely were on the brief, for the United States.
Miss Emily Marx for respondent.
Miss Emily Marx, by special leave of Court, filed a brief on behalf of Edward L. Parsons et al. as amici curiae.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice~'Sutherland
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is ruled by the decision just announced in United States v. Macintosh, ante, p. 605.
The respondent, an applicant for citizenship, was a native of Canada and came to the United States in 1914. She had duly declared her intention to become a citizen. She refused to take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the statute to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against ail enemies, etc., except with the written interpolation of the words, "as far as.my conscience as a Christian will allow." It is unnecessary to review her testimony. The only difference between the position she took, and that taken by the respondent in the Macintosh case, is that in addition to refusing positively to bear arms in defense of the United States under any circumstances, she required an actual amendment of the oath as already stated, instead of reserving the point by parol. As we said in. the Macintosh case, this is a circumstance which has no distinguishing effect. The substance of the oath has been definitely prescribed by Congress. The words of the statute do not admit of the qualification upon which the applicant insists. For the court to allow it to be made is to amend the act and thereby usurp the power of legislation vested in another, department of the government.
The examiner reported against the applicant, and the court of first instance, after a full hearing, denied the application. We think its decree was right.
The decree of the court of appeals is reversed and that of the district court is affirmed.