Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond (1970)
- Docket
- 49
- Decided
- 1970-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Does the New York system for admission to the state bar violate applicants’ First Amendment rights? Conclusion: No. Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the character and fitness requirement has long been understood to refer to conduct which would be dishonorable in a legal setting and therefore is not overbroad. The Court also held that there was no burden of proof placed on the applicant, and there was no evidence of any intent to penalize political beliefs. Justice John M. Harlan wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that a state had every right to refuse entrance to the bar to any applicant who professed a desire to overthrow the government or belonged to a group with those goals. While the First Amendment protects the applicants from being refused admission based on unpopular beliefs, it does not prevent them from being questioned about relevant issues. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion and argued that, when depriving an applicant of her right to practice law, a State must be held to a higher standard than when the state wishes to deprive someone of property. Because a state would never ask the same questions of a potential homeowner, the questions are not appropriate in a legal professional context either. Justice Black argued that, even if an applicant were to profess allegiance to a group that wishes to overthrow the government, those beliefs are protected by the First Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas joined in the dissent. In his dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the techniques the New York Committees use are intended to weed out political undesirables. He also argued that past practice illustrates that the understanding of the phrase is not narrow enough to prevent First Amendment violations.