Court Opinion

ID: 9418723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:37:14.210464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:50:10.872271
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes,
dissenting.
What I have said in the case of United States v. Macintosh, with respect to the interpretation of the provisions of the naturalization act and of the prescribed oath, I think applies also to this case. The petitioner is a nurse who spent nine months in the service of our Government in France, nursing United States soldiers and aiding in psychiatric work. She has religious scruples against bearing arms. I think that it sufficiently appears that her unwillingness to take the oath was merely because of the interpretation that had been placed upon it as amounting to a promise that she would bear arms despite her religious convictions. It was the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the appellant may properly take the oath according to its true significance and should be permitted to take it. 42 F. (2d) 842, 844, 845. I think that the judgment below should be affirmed.
Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone concur in this opinion.