Document: 401 U.S. 1 91 S.Ct. 702 27 L.Ed.2d 639 Sara BAIRD, Petitioner,v.STATE BAR OF ARIZONA. No. 15, 18. Reargued Oct. 14, 1970. Decided Feb. 23, 1971. Peter D. Baird, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner. Mark Wilmer, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK announced the judgment of Court and delivered an opinion in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL join. This is one two cases now before us from different States applicants have been denied admission to practice law solely because they refused answer questions about their personal beliefs or affiliations with organizations that advocate certain ideas government.1 Sharp conflicts close divisions arisen this concerning power refuse permit where bar examiners suspicious applicants' loyalties views on Communism revolution. has increasingly divisive bitter issue some years, especially since Senator Joseph McCarthy Wisconsin stirred up anti-Communist feelings fears by his 'investigations' early 1950's. One applicant named Raphael Konigsberg was California reversed. v. State Bar, 353 252, 77 722, 810 (1957). The nevertheless him a second time, then affirmed 5—to—4 decision. 366 36, 81 997, 6 105 (1961). An Rudolph Schware New Mexico reversed, five Justices agreeing opinion, three another not participating. Board Bar Examiners, 232, 752, 796 In case George Anastaplo Illinois grounds similar those involved Schware, denial margin. re Anastaplo, 82, 978, 135 See also Summers, 325 561, 65 1307, 89 L.Ed. 1795 (1945). With sharp Court, our docket Courts Appeals filled years litigation involving inquisitions associations refusals let people hold public even private jobs authorities ideas.2 Usually these denials employment based any overt acts misconduct lawlessness, continued raise serious alleged violations First Amendment other guarantees Bill Rights.3 2 foregoing others contain thousands pages confusing formulas, refined reasonings, puzzling holdings touch same suspicions citizenship loyalty. However we concluded best way handle narrate its simple facts relate them 45 words make Amendment. 3 These are facts. 4 petitioner, graduated school at Stanford University 1967. So far as record shows there never single mark against her moral character. She taken examination prescribed Arizona, admits she satisfactorily passed it. Among answered 25, called reveal all had associated reached 16 age.4 question satisfaction Arizona Committee. Consequently no charge intimation Mrs. Baird listed belonged becoming 16. addition, however, asked state whether ever member Communist Party organization 'that advocates overthrow United Government force violence.'5 When question, Committee declined process application further recommend bar.6 Supreme petition order show cause why should be admitted law. We granted certiorari. 394 957, 1308, 22 559. 5 it perjury committee's falsely, punishable felony. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13—561 (1956). effect young lady guess 'advocates violence.' There may well provisions Federal Constitution than would protect being subjected potentially so hazardous liberty. But her, think does here. That Amendment, made applicable Fourteenth, forbids 'law respecting establishment religion, prohibiting free exercise thereof; abridging freedom speech, press; right peaceably assemble * *.' Roberts, referring Amendment's guarantee said; 'Thus embraces concepts,—freedom believe act. first absolute but, nature things, cannot be. Conduct remains subject regulation protection society.' Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 303—304, 60 900, 903, 84 1213 (1940). 7 Schneider Jersey, Town Irvington, 308 147, 160—161, 146, 150—151, 155 (1939); West Virginia Education Barnette, 319 624, 642, 63 1178, 1187, 87 1628 (1943). And clear that: 'This conjunction liberties peculiar religious activity institutions alone. gives mind security conscience.' Thomas Collins, 323 516, 531, 315, 323, 430 extends association. As said Smith, 390 17, 88 682, 687, 19 799 (1968): 8 'The ban Congress 'abridging' petition, 'associational freedom' goes rights creates preserve individual inviolate.' 9 Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 485—487, 247, 250—252, 231 (1960); Bates Little Rock, 361 80 412, 480 NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 78 1163, 1488 (1958). 10 association prohibits excluding person profession punishing he particular political holds beliefs. Robel, 389 258, 266, 419, 425, 508 (1967); Keyishian Regents, 385 589, 607, 675, 686, 17 629 (1967). Similarly, when attempts inquiries person's associations, limited Broad sweeping into protected areas, engaged here, discourage citizens exercising Constitution. supra; Gibson Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 539, 83 889, 929 (1963); Cf. Speiser Randall, 513, 1332, 1460 11 seeks inquire individual's heavy burden lies upon inquiry necessary legitimate interest. supra, 546, 893. Of course interest determining petitioner qualities character professional competence requisite here already supplied extensive information assist determination. By answers listing former employers, professors, references, available relevant fitness law.7 whatever justification offered, man's purpose withholding benefit what believes. 12 Much written penalties imposed Some reconcilable not. Without detailed reference prior cases, sufficient say immune designed lay foundation barring Clearly such questioning here.8 13 matter grace, but who qualified learning Supra, Ex parte Garland, Wall. 333, 18 (1867). wholly barren word, sentence, paragraph tends morally professionally fit serve honorably legal profession. It error admit Bar. reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 ordered. 15 Reversed Remanded. STEWART, concurring judgment. held under circumstances present past membership unconstitutional. 105; 135. Question 27, asks Our decisions must confined knowing satisfy Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., 265 424—425, 508; Law Students Civil Rights Research Council Wadmond, 400 U.S., 165, S.Ct., 727. follows mere can never, itself, ground State's imposition civil disabilities criminal punishment. Such quite advocating violence, part sharing specific intent organization's illegal goals. Scales States, 367 203, 228—230, 1469, 782; Student supra. constitutional infirmity Arizona's 27. respondent agency entrusted administration standards Arizona. respondent's explanation asking makes treated For explicitly states applicant's found objectionable. 162—163 726 Yet Amendments acting merely E.g., 1628; 1213. Carrington Rash, 380 89, 94, 85 775, 779, 675. 20 WHITE, dissenting. 21 I am unable join opinions announcing judgments cases. my view require lawyer believes violence intends implement belief advice clients. ask preliminary will investigation reasoned, articulated advise lawless conduct practicing lawyer. intention Brother BLACKMUN clear. Its were ascertain expects actively support espouses activist role implementing idea. 23 Ohio takes much approach, both right. If, preface questions, York Party, although fact alone exclusion, see Council, Inc. 154, 720, 749, justifiable reason. if reveals furthering activities group without comprehension advising incompatible standards, able deny 24 BLACK'S hasten assure us, itself 'qualities character' educational qualifications. Accordingly, entitled assessment 'honesty' license firmly convinced responses evidence conform integrity expected members Neither required violent achieve social, political, ends currently supporting do clients role. thus basis forbidding perfectly considers proper lawyer, practitioner, means settling disputes achieving social ends. therefore dissent 25 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HARLAN, WHITE join, 26 This, me, Baird. necessarily assumed, trust erroneously, California, 105, 135, decided April 24, 1961, remained good despite Court's division (Justice Harlan Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker, Stewart majority; Black Chief Warren, Douglas Brennan, dissenting). expressly overruled. each decided, very least, STEWART puts separate concurrence 'under unconstitutional.' 28 really more that. (a) 'reiterated unequivocally disbelief overthrow, stated knowingly advocated action,' 39, 1000; (b) thought 'clear arbitrary action forbid denying long refuses provide unprivileged having substantial relevance qualifications,' 44, 1003; 29 'We likewise regard untenable petitioner's contentions irrelevant either bare, innocent disqualification willingness ultimate himself believed overthrow,' 46, 1004; 30 31 'It indeed difficult argue belief, firm enough carried over advocacy, use change form unimportant consideration whose hands largely safekeeping country's institutions. 32 '(W)e lawyers devoted broadest sense, including only substantive provisions, procedures orderly change, clearly outweigh minimal occasioned compulsory disclosure presented,' 51—52, 1007, 33 (c) observed: 34 enforcing rule applied outweighs deterrent speech association, hence offend Amendment.' (Footnote omitted.) 983. 35 Petitioner attacked court again attacks claims that, perhaps distinguishable, 'warrant delimiting, overruling light trend 1961.' view, striking success endeavor seeming recognition plurality reversal (hereafter plurality) concurrence's definite bow direction. 36 comes after argument stark posture. possessor academic degree Colorado College, University, answer, 'Not Applicable,' 27th questionnaire rule, Bar.1 reads: 37 'Are you violence?' 38 bases refusal preceding inquiry, 25th, age 16, asserted propositions compel Fifth incriminate herself, due process. 39 vastly overstates case. On record, affirm Baird's courts. 40 several factors prompt conclusion: 41 1. intelligent knowledgeable person. college graduate degree, and, assumed demonstrated acceptable knowledge mastery claim vagueness lack awareness precisely meant intended probe. obviously knew scope concern forceful Government. 42 2. Applicable' response fully understandable. course, phrased hurriedly passing buttressed statement, list includes recall time,' within contemplation latter was, indeed, 'not applicable'. After all, did employ applicable' less places; most these, conditional context, could left blank blank, general instruction answered. 43 Nevertheless respond manner brief states, 'declined answer' question. then, leaves posture inadvertent product misunderstanding mistake, flatly refused, applicant, somewhat defiantly, content remain won lost record. reminiscent obstructionist tactics condemned Anastaplo. 44 3. memberships need all.2 To obvious inconsistency position, related. Furthermore, duplicative. place Examinations Admissions3 listed, any, arm That, task Court. task. truism, think, works beneath surface open high-sounding names front verbal shield something name imports. 4. No better position know aim advocacy member. Certainly things do, equipped checking out identity every organization, might follow standard known, better. submitting partial answers. appearance playing game. importance deserves 46 5. applicant. Application Courtney, Ariz. 231, 233, P.2d 991, 993, is. Had 'None' end absence prevarication. If doubt, 'None knowledge' accomplished result. chose neither answer. chose, instead, silent candid. 47 6. feel, fails exact focus. situation where, 'In violence." falls short guesswork. knew, coupled attempt conceal. know, knowledge. 'guess' absent deceive, certainly fraught risks perjury. 48 7. Although concededly, gone own participation in, promotion of, goals, realistic reading discloses directed call pursuit advocacy. Contrary opinion's conclusion concurrence, find nothing indicates automatically affirmative. Committee's here,4 disclose exactly opposite. Memorandum, filed cause, recommendation nonrecommendation made; affirmative lead expectation objective overthrow; nominal participate views, refusing admission.5 material quoted footnote body Memorandum; material, order. share interpretation belief. key 'violent sought after.' violence. 49 8. talk, briefs receiving authority 'right' 'privilege.' old old-fashioned always regarded privilege least tradition. A century ago Field referred grace favor. 379, spoken terms. Klahr, 102 529, 433 977, 979 oppositely stated, just accuracy, asserts,6 'one character, law.' Indeed, it: '(T)he right, conditioned requirement mental, physical qualifications.' P.2d, 979. Levine, 97 88, 90—91, 397 205, 206—207 (1964), Burke, 336, 339, 351 169, 172 (1960). 50 characterization little semantics. seems me whichever be, State, granting law, surely true privilege, client's confidences, aspirations, freedom, life property, livelihood, demands formal certificate completion study ability acceptably series examination. presumably fundamentally authorizes 51 9. Judges hesitate judge too strictly seeking entrance impatience far-ranging attitudes youthful not, themselves, disqualifying. maturing process, future study, examine, select, develop philosophies Frankfurter expressed well: 52 enjoyed prerogatives; anxious responsibilities *. From charged exacted truth-speaking, high sense honor, granite discretion, strictest observance fiduciary responsibility, have, throughout centuries, compendiously described 'moral character.' 'History overwhelmingly establishes many youths like drawn mirage communism during depression era, eyes later opened reality. experiences doubt woolly naive notions regarding problems society. history rejecting presumption, irrebuttable foolish, baseless hopes betterment society entertained undoubtedly came senses responsibility 'questionable characters." 251, 760—762, (1957) (concurring opinion). 53 10. attorney, sometimes tend forget, officer court. Wall., 378, 366. Perhaps read phrase. distinct element seen, late, overabundance courtroom spectacle brought attorneys frequently who, unlicensed permitted, court's indulgence appear given case—who give indications ignoring courts judicial bears facet 54 11. acknowledges prescribe when, judgment, amount committee. tribunal sufficiency limit, limit marked relevant, excesses unreasonableness harassment, otherwise constitutionally forbidden. point reasons convenience self-protection contrariness, decides enough. 55 12. Finally, measure itself. area possible vulnerability nowhere greater Courtroom events disclosed recent vividly demonstrate this. Allen, 337, 90 1057, (1970); Mayberry Pennsylvania, 455, 499, 532 (1971). Assurance professes refrain which, admission, become working part, worse, lived judging excellent education, prospered benefits, inquiry. 56 above, 18, Stolar, 713, 657. 49, 749. Adler Education, 342 485, 72 380, 96 517 (1952); Beilan 399, 1317, 1414 (1958); Elfbrandt Russell, 384 11, 86 1238, 321 (1966); cited n. 2, American Communications Assn. Douds, 339 382, 445, 70 674, 707, 94 925 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting); cf. Wilkinson 365 567, 633 (1961); Brandenburg Ohio, 395 444, 1827, (1969). App. Response Admissions Order Show Cause. Respondent argued still serves useful function. urges: 'Assume Sons Daughters Will Arise.' truly Christian objectives. objectives Lenin, Stalin deceased teachings conducive welfare government life.' Brief were: Church Choir; Girl Scouts; Girls Athletic Association; Young Republicans; Democrats; School Council. threaten Republic. committee urges demand because: 'Unless conclude sincerely courts, appropriate. emphasizes 'yes' automatic rejection application. interrogation presently entertains after. reject admission.' (Emphasis added.) Memorandum Support Petition Cause, 5—6. XXIV, XXIX, XXXVII, pertinent Rule 28(c) time submitted amended, effective August 1, 1970, ways 106 XXXI. majority, impermissible. 713. appears hesitancy answering 28(c). emphasize formed recommended adhere desirable expect views. Should desirable, Respondent's contrary repeated assertions insinuations Petitioner's Brief, abundantly regardless notion destroyed favorable *' conscience certify simple. 'Is willing work undermine destroy law?' 13. 15.

Category: 2