Court Opinion

ID: 9421701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:23.372972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:31.733410
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Black agrees, concurring.
What I have said in Speiser v. Randall and Prince v. San Francisco, decided this day, ante, p. 532, is sufficient for these cases as well. But there is a related ground on which the decision in these Unitarian cases should rest. We know from the record one principle of that church:
“The principles, moral and religious, of the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles compel it, its members, officers and minister, as a matter of deepest conscience, belief and conviction, to deny power in the state to compel acceptance by it or any other church of this or any other oath of coerced affirmation as to church doctrine, advocacy or beliefs.”
*548We stated in Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 69, “The test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.” See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 445 (dissenting opinion). The reason for that abhorrence is the supremacy of conscience in our constitutional scheme. As we stated in Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
There is no power in our Government to make one bend his religious scruples to the requirements of this tax law.