author: Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice,

text:
    FOWLER v. ADAMS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF FLORIDA
    Decided August 11, 1970
    See: 315 F. Supp. 592.
   Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice,

Mr. William Y. Fowler made a timely application to the Florida Secretary of State to become a candidate for the United States House of Representatives and was denied a place on the ballot because he refused to pay the $2,125 filing fee required by state statutes, Florida Stat. Ann. §§ 99.021 and 99.092. The applicant challenged the constitutionality of these Florida laws on the ground that since a Congressman is a federal officer a State cannot impose such a fee as a condition for candidacy. The applicant also asserted that the fee requirement was a denial of equal protection of the laws. A three-judge Federal District Court in the Middle District of Florida rejected these contentions. The State claims the right to impose such a fee under Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1, of the United States Constitution, which provides:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of . chusing Senators.”

Florida asserts that since Congress has not exercised its power to- “make or alter” filing regulations for conducting congressional elections, the State retains the , power to impose the fee in question.

The case raises questions which make it impossible for me to predict with certainty what the majority of this Court would decide. The full Court in all likelihood will not meet until October, after the primary on September 8, 1970. Under these circumstances my decision on this application could settle this controversy on a basis which the Court might not later accept. The record presents no facts that would show an imposition of irreparable damage upon the State should it be required to place the applicant’s name on the ballot, and should the law later be upheld by this Court, the State might then collect the fee from the candidate. Furthermore, even if the law is held valid after the applicant’s name has been submitted to the voters, neither he nor the public would have suffered irreparable damage. If, on the other hand, the applicant is denied an opportunity to run for office and the Florida law is later invalidated, this candidate would have been unconstitutionally barred from the ballot. In this situation, I think the equities are with the applicant.

The State is therefore directed to take the steps necessary to place the applicant’s name on the ballot without the payment of the filing fee.

It is so ordered.

       315 F. Supp. 592 (MD Fla. 1970).

       Compare Fowler v. Adams, supra, with Georgia Socialist Workers Party v. Fortson, 315 F. Supp. 1035 (ND Ga. 1970). See also my opinion in Matthews v. Little, 396 U. S. 1223 (1969).

       See my opinion in Davis v. Adams, ante, p. 1203.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    DEXTER et al. v. SCHRUNK et al.
    Decided August 29, 1970
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Under Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, applicants make out a strong case for federal protection of their First Amendment rights. But Dombrowski, a five-to-two decision rendered in 1965, is up for re-examination in cases set for reargument this fall. If the present case were before the Conference of this Court, I am confident it would be held pending the cases to be re-argued. Hence, as Circuit Justice, I do not fqel warranted in taking action, contrary to what I feel the Conference would do. Accordingly, I deny the restraining order requested.


author: Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice.-

text:
    MARCELLO v. UNITED STATES
    Decided September 18, 1970
   Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice.-

This bail application by Carlos Marcello is the latest event in a long series of prosecutions of Marcello by federal authorities. See, e. g., Marcello v. United States, 196 F. 2d 437 (CA5 1952). All these prosecutions ended in dismissal of charges by the Government of acquittal except a conviction of illegal , transfer of marihuana in 1938 and the present case in which Marcello was convicted in 1968 of assaulting an FBI agent in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 111. This conviction was affirmed on appeal, 423 F.- 2d 993 (CA5 1970), and this Court denied -certiorari. 398 U. S. 959. In June 1970, Marcello filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the Government suppressed evidence which he was entitled to present to the jury that convicted him. In August 1970, Marcello sought a hearing under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 alleging that the ; chief Government witness had perjured himself. Both motions were denied, and Marcello’s appeals from these orders are now pending’ in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth- Circuit. The Court of Appeals declined to continue Marcello ;on bail pending a final disposition of his appeals. Marcello’s claims rest on the following facts summarized from the record.

Shortly before the alleged assault in 1966 Marcello was in New York preparing to return to his home in New Orleans. FBI agents in New York advised agents in New Orleans that Marcello was scheduled to arrive at the New Orleans airport on Delta Airlines at 8:30 p. m. on September 30. After the receipt of this message, a New Orleans FBI agent telephoned the Associated Press', the local newspapers, and a local television station and inquired whether they intended to coyer the arrival of a “prominent person” at the airport' that evening. When the Delta plane arrived, the press swarmed around Marcello: With them were FBI Agent Collins, who according to the Government’s brief and. the Court of Appeals was “posing as a passenger,” and FBI Agent Avignone, carrying a camera. According to the Court of Appeals:

“This crowd followed Marcello through the airport and onto the upper ramp outside where Marcello, angrily and with some profanity, inquired whether the photographers had taken enough. pictures. Collins, with arms folded, answered in the negative, and Marcello retorted: ‘Are you looking for trouble?’ which elicited the not unexpected reply from Collins that ‘I can handle trouble.’” United States v. Marcello, 423 F. 2d 993, 997.

Marcello’s version was that Collins said “I’m always looking for trouble.” The Court of Appeals continued: “This exchange had an unsettling effect on Marcello who took a couple of short jabs at Collins and attempted to mow him down with a haymaker, which never really got off the ground because of his brother Joseph’s restraint.” Collins himself testified that if Marcello touched his body at all, “it was so slight, I did not feel it.” For this “technical assault,” which Collins swore he did not feel, Marcello was fined $5,000 and sentenced to two years in prison.

The entire case and circumstances shown by the record are highly disturbing. At Marcello’s trial in 1968 his counsel suggested that Government agents were themselves responsible for the crowd of newsmen surrounding Marcello and photographing him at the airport. Counsel prosecuting Marcello expressed resentment at the suggestion that the Government had entrapped or provoked him. The Government then denied that it had any evidence favorable to Marcello. This denial seems incredible to me in view of the now admitted facts that an agent called the press telling them of the arrival of a “prominent person” and that prosecuting counsel were informed before trial of these FBI contacts with the press. I have no doubt of the relevancy of this evidence in the eyes of the jury considering Marcello’s defense that the FBI was after him and had provoked the incident. I have no doubt that the Government’s conduct in this case raises questions worthy of review. I am not sure, however, that three of my Brethren will agree. Under these circumstances, I shall take no action at all oh this application but shall refer it to the full Court at its first meeting October 5.

So or deredr

        United States v. Marcello, Trial Transcript 1126. .

        United States v. Marcello, Transcript of Motion for New Trial and for Reduction of Sentence 206, 213, 221.

        United States v. Marcello, Trial Transcript 1209.

        Id., at 941.

         Id., at 345.

        United States v. Marcello, Transcript of Motion for New Trial and for Reduction of Sentence 220.


text:
    HARRIS et al. v. UNITED STATES
    No. 780.
    Decided October 10, 1970
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

This is an application for a stay of a judgment of the Court of Appeals pending disposition of a petition for certiorari which has been filed here. The United States has filed its opposition. ■ The stay has been denied by the Court of Appeals and I am reluctant to take action' contrary to what it has done. There are, however, two questions in the case not heretofore decided by this Court which are of considerable importance.

First is a question of the propriety of petitioners seeking relief here. The District Court suppressed evidence seized on a so-called “border” search and the United States appealed. Its appeal apparently was under 18 U. S. C. § 1404 which creates an exception to the ban against appeals which Are not “final” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291, a ban to which we gave full enforcement in DiBella v. United States, 369 U. S. 121. Under that decision petitioners could not appeal to the Court of Appeals from an adverse decision in thé District Court. Whether they could appeal from an adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals is a question we have not adjudicated.

Beyond that may be a question concerning the propriety of the Government’s appeal, though the question does not seem to be raised by petitioners. Title 18 U. S. C. §,1404 provides in part':

“[T]he United States shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion for the return of seized property and to suppress evidence made before the' trial of a person charged with a violation of—
(2) subsection (c), (h), or (i) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, as amended (21 U. S. C., sec. 174) . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

The order of the District Court apparently did not provide for the return of the property. The statute does not in haec verba grant an appeal if there was “suppression” alone. In light of DiBella, the question is whether the statute will be strictly construed against appealability.

Second is a question under the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals has adopted the rule that “probable, cause” is not necessary for “a lawful border search.” Castillo-Garcia v. United States, 424 F. 2d 482, 484. In that case the “border search” took place 105 miles from the border and seven hours after the entry of the car from Mexico, the vehicle having, been followed and kept under constant surveillance by Customs agents. In the. present, case the truck entered this country from Mexico at San Ysidro, California, and was seized and searched when it was parked in Los Angeles, some 150 miles, distant. The statute, 19 U. S. C. § 482,. allows searches by Customs agents where they have “a reasonable cause-to suspect” that there is merchandise being imported contrary to law. While the test in the Ninth Circuit of the legality of the extended border search is constant surveillance of the vehicle or person after entry, the Fifth Circuit rests on “reasonable cause to suspect.” See Stassi v. United States, 410 F. 2d 946, 951. The difference between these two approaches has been noted in the Second Circuit. United States v. Glaziou, 402 F. 2d 8, 13-14, n. 3; United States v. Pedersen, 300 F. Supp. 669. The rather old dictum of this Court in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154, hardly meets the refinements of these new distinctions.

I indicate no view of the merits on either of the two questions but have said only enough to illústrate the substantial nature of the questions presented. For these reasons I have concluded to grant the stay requested.

      While § 1404 (2) refers to a section dealing with marihuana, §174 is also cited in §1404(2) and §174 covers narcotics rather than marihuana. So a related question‘is whether that ambiguity will be resolved in favor of the. rather strict policy reflected in DiBella.


author:
Mr. Justice Black
      Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Blackmun,

text:
    BAIRD v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
    No. 15.
    Argued December 8-9, 1969 —Reargued October 14, 1970
    Decided February 23, 1971

      Black, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion, in which Douglas, BreNNAN, and Marshall, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 9. HarlaN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 34. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 10. Blackmun, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and HarlaN and White, JJ., joined, post, p. 11.

      Peter D. Baird reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were John P. Frank and Paul G. Ulrich.

      Mark Wilmer reargued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Black

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall join.

This is one of two cases now before us from two different States in which applicants have been denied admission to practice law solely because they refused to answer questions about their personal beliefs or their affiliations with organizations that advocate certain ideas about government. Sharp conflicts and close divisions have arisen in this Court concerning the power of States to refuse to permit applicants to practice law in cases where bar examiners have been suspicious about applicants’ loyalties and their views on Communism and revolution. This has been an increasingly divisive and bitter issue for some years, especially since Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin stirred up anti-Communist feelings and fears by his “investigations” in the early 1950’s. One applicant named Raphael Konigs-berg was denied admission in California and this Court reversed. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252 (1957). The State nevertheless denied him admission a second time, and this Court then affirmed by a 5-to-4 decision. 366 U. S. 36 (1961). An applicant named Rudolph Schware was denied admission in New Mexico and this Court reversed, with five Justices agreeing on one opinion, three Justices on another opinion, and one not participating. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232 (1957). In another case an applicant named George Anastaplo was denied admission in Illinois on grounds similar to those involved in Konigsberg and Schware, and the denial was affirmed by a 5-to-4 margin. In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 (1961). See also In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561 (1945). With sharp divisions in this Court, our docket and those of the Courts of Appeals have been filled for years with litigation involving inquisitions about beliefs and associations and refusals to let people practice law and hold public or even private jobs solely because public authorities have been suspicious of their ideas. Usually these denials of employment have not been based on any overt acts of misconduct or lawlessness, and the litigation has continued to raise serious questions of alleged violations of the First Amendment and other guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

The foregoing cases and others contain thousands of pages of confusing formulas, refined reasonings, and puzzling holdings that touch on the same suspicions and fears about citizenship and loyalty. However we have concluded the best way to handle this case is to narrate its simple facts and then relate them to the 45 words that make up the First Amendment.

These are the facts.

The petitioner, Sara Baird, graduated from law school at Stanford University in California in 1967. So far as the record shows there is not now and never has been a single mark against her moral character. She has taken the examination prescribed by Arizona, and the answer of the State admits that she satisfactorily passed it. Among the questions she answered was No. 25, which called on her to reveal all organizations with which she had been associated since she reached 16 years of age. This question she answered to the satisfaction of the Arizona Bar Committee. Consequently there is no charge or intimation that Mrs. Baird has not listed the organizations to which she has belonged since becoming 16. In addition, however, she was asked to state whether she had ever been a member of the Communist Party or any organization “that advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence.” When she refused to answer this question, the Committee declined to process her application further or recommend her admission to the bar. The Arizona Supreme Court then denied her petition for an order to the Committee to show cause why she should not be admitted to practice law. We granted certiorari. 394 U. S. 957.

In Arizona it is perjury to answer the bar committee’s questions falsely, and perjury is punishable as a felony. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-561 (1956). In effect this young lady was asked by the State to make a guess as to whether any organization to which she ever belonged “advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence.” There may well be provisions of the Federal Constitution other than the First Amendment that would protect an applicant to a state bar from being subjected to a question potentially so hazardous to her liberty. But whether or not there are other provisions that protect her, we think the First Amendment does so here. That Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, forbids any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .” Mr. Justice Roberts, in referring to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, said:

“Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,— freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304 (1940).

See also Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 160-161 (1939); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943). And we have made it clear that: “This conjunction of liberties is not peculiar to religious activity and institutions alone. The First Amendment gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 531 (1945). The protection of the First Amendment also extends to the right of association. As we said in Schneider v. Smith, 390 U. S. 17, 25 (1968):

“The First Amendment’s ban against Congress ‘abridging’ freedom of speech, the right peaceably to assemble and to petition, and the ‘associational freedom’. . . that goes with those rights create a preserve where the views of the individual are made inviolate.”

See also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 485-487 (1960); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).

The First Amendment’s protection of association prohibits a State from excluding a person from a profession or punishing him solely because he is a member of a particular political organization or because he holds certain beliefs. United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 266 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 607 (1967). Similarly, when a State attempts to make inquiries about a person’s beliefs or associations, its power is limited by the First Amendment. Broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas, as Arizona has engaged in here, discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution. Shelton v. Tucker, supra; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S. 539 (1963); Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958).

When a State seeks to inquire about an individual’s beliefs and associations a heavy burden lies upon it to show that the inquiry is necessary to protect a legitimate state interest. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, supra, at 546. Of course Arizona has a legitimate interest in determining whether petitioner has the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law. But here petitioner has already supplied the Committee with extensive personal and professional information to assist its determination. By her answers to questions other than No. 25, and her listing of former employers, law school professors, and other references, she has made available to the Committee the information relevant to her fitness to practice law. And whatever justification may be offered, a State may not inquire about a man’s views or associations solely for the purpose of withholding a right or benefit because of what he believes.

Much has been written about the application of the First Amendment to cases where penalties have been imposed on people because of their beliefs. Some of what has been written is reconcilable with what we have said here and some of it is not. Without detailed reference to all prior cases, it is sufficient to say we hold that views and beliefs are immune from bar association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law. Clearly Arizona has engaged in such questioning here.

The practice of law is not a matter of grace, but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and his moral character. See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, supra, and Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867). This record is wholly barren of one word, sentence, or paragraph that tends to show this lady is not morally and professionally fit to serve honorably and well as a member of the legal profession. It was error not to process her application and not to admit her to the Arizona Bar. The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of Me. Justice Hablan, see post, p. 34.]

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring in judgment.

The Court has held that under some circumstances simple inquiry into present or past Communist Party membership of an applicant for admission to the Bar is not as such unconstitutional. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36; In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82.

Question 27, however, goes further and asks applicants whether they have ever belonged to any organization “that advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence.” Our decisions have made clear that such inquiry must be confined to knowing membership to satisfy the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e. g., United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 265-266; Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, post, p. 154, at 165. It follows from these decisions that mere membership in an organization can never, by itself, be sufficient ground for a State’s imposition of civil disabilities or criminal punishment. Such membership can be quite different from knowing membership in an organization advocating the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, on the part of one sharing the specific intent to further the organization’s illegal goals. See Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 228-230; Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, supra.

There is a further constitutional infirmity in Arizona’s Question 27. The respondent State Bar is the agency entrusted with the administration of the standards for admission to practice law in Arizona. And the respondent’s explanation of its purpose in asking the question makes clear that the question must be treated as an inquiry into political beliefs. For the respondent explicitly states that it would recommend denial of admission solely because of an applicant’s beliefs that the respondent found objectionable. Cf. Wadmond, supra, at 162-163. Yet the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar a State from acting against any person merely because of his beliefs. E. g., West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304. Cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 94.

Mr. Justice White,

dissenting.

I am quite unable to join the opinions of Mr. Justice Black announcing the judgments of the Court in these cases. It is my view that the Constitution does not require a State to admit to practice a lawyer who believes in violence and intends to implement that belief in his practice of law and advice to clients. I also believe that the State may ask an applicant preliminary questions that will permit further investigation and reasoned, articulated judgment as to whether the applicant will or will not advise lawless conduct as a practicing lawyer.

Arizona has no intention of barring applicants based on belief alone. This my Brother Blackmun makes quite clear. Its inquiries were designed to ascertain whether an applicant expects actively to support illegal violence or espouses an activist role in implementing that idea.

Ohio takes much the same approach, and in my view both States are right. If, as a preface to further questions, New York may ask whether an applicant is a knowing member of the Communist Party, although that fact alone would not be ground for exclusion, see Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, post, p. 154, Arizona and Ohio may ask about simple membership for the same justifiable reason. And if investigation reveals the applicant to be actively furthering the illegal activities of any group or to be without comprehension that advising lawless conduct is incompatible with professional standards, the State should be able to deny admission to the Bar.

As Mr. Justice Black’s opinions hasten to assure us, a State may assure itself of an applicant’s “qualities of character” and educational qualifications. Accordingly, it would be entitled to make an assessment of his “honesty” and refuse to license him if firmly convinced by his responses or other record evidence that he would not conform to the standards of integrity expected of the members of the Bar. Neither should it be required to admit to practice a person who believes in violent conduct to achieve social, political, or other ends and who is currently and actively supporting such activities or who expects to do so in the course of advising clients in his professional role. I thus see no constitutional basis for forbidding the asking of perfectly relevant questions designed to ascertain whether an applicant considers it the proper role of the lawyer, as practitioner, to advise and advocate violence as a means for settling disputes or achieving social or political ends. I therefore dissent from the judgments in both of these cases.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice White join, dissenting.

This, for me, is not at all a case involving mere personal beliefs on the part of Sara Baird.

I have necessarily assumed, and I trust not erroneously, that Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36, and In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82, both decided on April 24, 1961, have remained good law despite the Court’s then close division (Justice Harlan and Justices Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker, and Stewart in the majority; Justice Black and Chief Justice Warren, and Justices Douglas and Brennan, dissenting). Neither case has ever been expressly overruled. Neither is now expressly overruled. In each of the cases the Court decided, at the very least, as Mr. Justice Stewart puts it in his separate concurrence here, that “under some circumstances simple inquiry into present or past Communist Party membership of an applicant for admission to the Bar is not as such unconstitutional.”

I think the Court really decided more than that. I say this because (a) in Konigsberg the applicant had “reiterated unequivocally his disbelief in violent overthrow, and stated that he had never knowingly been a member of any organization which advocated such action,” 366 U. S., at 39; (b) the Court stated that it thought it “clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against arbitrary state action does not forbid a State from denying admission to a bar applicant so long as he refuses to provide unprivileged answers to questions having a substantial relevance to his qualifications,” 366 U. S., at 44; that:

“We likewise regard as untenable petitioner’s contentions that the questions as to Communist Party membership were made irrelevant either by the fact that bare, innocent membership is not a ground of disqualification or by petitioner’s willingness to answer such ultimate questions as whether he himself believed in violent overthrow or knowingly belonged to an organization advocating violent overthrow,” 366 U. S., at 46;

and that:

“It would indeed be difficult to argue that a belief, firm enough to be carried over into advocacy, in the use of illegal means to change the form of the State or Federal Government is an unimportant consideration in determining the fitness of applicants for membership in a profession in whose hands so largely lies the safekeeping of this country’s legal and political institutions. . . .
“[W]e regard the State’s interest in having lawyers who are devoted to the law in its broadest sense, including not only its substantive provisions, but also its procedures for orderly change, as clearly sufficient to outweigh the minimal effect upon free association occasioned by compulsory disclosure in the circumstances here presented,” 366 U. S., at 51-52;

and (c) in Anastaplo it was observed:

“We have also held in Konigsberg that the State’s interest in enforcing such a rule as applied to refusals to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party outweighs any deterrent effect upon freedom of speech and association, and hence that such state action does not offend the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Footnote omitted.) 366 U. S., at 89.

Petitioner Baird, however, attacked the integrity of these cases before the Arizona court and again attacks their integrity here and claims that, although perhaps distinguishable, the cases “warrant . . . delimiting, and perhaps even overruling in light of the trend since 1961.” In my view, Mrs. Baird has now had striking success in her overruling endeavor despite the seeming recognition of the two cases in the opinion of the plurality for reversal (hereafter plurality) and the separate concurrence’s definite bow in their direction.

The present case comes here, after argument for the second time, in a stark and clear posture. Mrs. Baird, applicant for admission to the Bar of the State of Arizona, possessor of an academic degree from Colorado College, and possessor of a degree in law from Stanford University, refuses to answer, other than to say “Not Applicable,” the 27th inquiry of a questionnaire which the Arizona Supreme Court, by rule, has made a part of the application for membership in the State Bar. That question reads:

“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any organization that advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence?”

The applicant bases this refusal (a) on the fact that in her answer to a preceding inquiry, the 25th, she listed the organizations of which she had been a member since age 16, and (b) on the asserted legal propositions that to compel her to answer is to deny her First Amendment rights of freedom of belief and freedom of association, her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, and her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

In my view, applicant Baird vastly overstates her case. On this record, I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in denying Mrs. Baird's petition for admission to practice law in the State’s courts.

There are several factors that prompt my conclusion:

1. Mrs. Baird is an intelligent and knowledgeable person. She holds a college degree and a graduate degree, and, as is assumed here, she has demonstrated in the Bar examination an acceptable knowledge and mastery of the law. There is no claim of vagueness or lack of awareness on her part of precisely what Question 27 meant or of what it was intended to probe. The applicant obviously knew the scope of the question and its concern with the Party and with forceful and violent overthrow of the Government.

2. Mrs. Baird’s use of the “Not Applicable” response to Question 27 is not fully understandable. Of course, she may have so phrased that answer hurriedly in the passing thought that, with her listing of organizations in response to Question 25, buttressed by the statement, “This list includes all organizations that I can recall at this time,” and with those organizations on the list obviously not within the contemplation of Question 27, the latter question was, indeed, “not applicable.” After all, she did employ the same “not applicable” answer on the form in no less than 16 other places; most of these, because of their conditional context, could well have been left blank and would have been expected to be left blank, despite the general instruction that all questions were to be answered.

Nevertheless she did respond to the inquiry in that manner and, as her brief states, she now has “declined to answer” the question. This, then, leaves this litigation in the posture where the response to Question 27 was not inadvertent and was not the product of any misunderstanding or mistake, where an answer is now flatly refused, and where the applicant, perhaps somewhat defiantly, is content to have the record remain as it is and to have her case won or lost on that record. This is reminiscent of the obstructionist tactics condemned in Konigsberg and Anastaplo.

3. For Mrs. Baird to say that because she had answered Question 25 and had listed her organization memberships since age 16 she need not respond to Question 27 is no answer at all. To answer the one question fully and to refuse to respond to the other embraces an obvious inconsistency of position, for the two questions are related. Furthermore, the questions are not duplicative. By her refusal to answer Question 27, she would place on the Arizona Committee on Examinations and Admissions and on the Supreme Court of Arizona the burden of determining which of the organizations she listed, if any, was an arm of the Communist Party or advocated forceful or violent overthrow of the Government. That, however, is not the task of the Committee or of the Arizona Supreme Court. It is Sara Baird’s task. It is a truism, I think, that the Communist endeavor works beneath the surface as well as in the open and that high-sounding names have been the front and the verbal shield for something very different from what the name imports.

4. No one is in a better position to know the aim and purpose and advocacy of an organization than a member. Certainly the Committee and the Arizona Supreme Court, which have other things to do, are not equipped for the task of checking out the identity of every named organization, especially one which might follow the standard of the less said and known, the better. And Mrs. Baird would place this burden on the Committee by submitting partial answers. She gives the appearance of playing a game. The importance of the subject deserves better than that.

5. It has been said that the burden is on the applicant. Application of Courtney, 83 Ariz. 231, 233, 319 P. 2d 991, 993 (1957). But a most minimal burden it is. Had she answered “None” to Question 27, that would have been the end of the matter in the absence of obvious prevarication. If she were in doubt, the answer “None to my knowledge” would have accomplished the same result. She chose neither answer. She chose, instead, to remain silent and less than candid.

6. The plurality opinion, I feel, fails to place the issue in exact focus. This is not a situation where, as that opinion states, and even would do so in a perjury context, “In effect this young lady was asked by the State to make a guess as to whether any organization to which she ever belonged ‘advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence.’ ” It falls far short of guesswork. Mrs. Baird either knew the answer or she did not know it. If she knew, she coupled her knowledge with an attempt to conceal. If she did not know, she had only to state her lack of knowledge. This was no “guess” and, absent the intent to deceive, it certainly was no guess fraught with the risks of perjury.

7. Although Question 27, concededly, would have been better phrased had it gone on to inquire as to the applicant’s own knowing participation in, and promotion of, illegal goals, a realistic reading of the question discloses that it is directed not at mere belief but at advocacy and at the call to violent action and force in pursuit of that advocacy. Contrary to the plurality opinion’s conclusion and to that of the separate concurrence, I find nothing in this record that indicates that Mrs. Baird automatically would have been denied admission to the Bar had she answered Question 27 in the affirmative. The record, and the Committee’s brief here, disclose exactly the opposite. In its Memorandum, filed with the Arizona court in support of its response to the order to show cause, the Committee stated that no judgment as to recommendation or nonrecommendation for admission had been made; that an affirmative answer to Question 27 would lead to further inquiry as to Mrs. Baird's expectation actively to support the objective of violent overthrow; and that, if her membership is of a nominal character and she does not participate in the advocacy views, there would be no legal basis for refusing a recommendation for admission. The material quoted in the plurality opinion’s footnote 8 is from the body of the Memorandum; my reading of that material, however, indicates only that further inquiry is then in order. I do not share the opinion’s interpretation of that material as being directed to mere belief. The key words are whether “violent overthrow ... is something to be sought after.” That is an inquiry into willingness to participate in violence.

8. There is talk, of course, in the briefs here about whether admission to the Bar and receiving authority to practice law is a “right” or a “privilege.” I am old enough and old-fashioned enough always to have regarded it more as a privilege than as a right. I at least thought that was the tradition. A century ago Mr. Justice Field referred to the practice of law by a qualified person as a right and not as a matter of the State’s grace or favor. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 379 (1867). The Arizona court has spoken in similar terms. Application of Klahr, 102 Ariz. 529, 531, 433 P. 2d 977, 979 (1967). It could oppositely be stated, with just as much accuracy, as the Bar in its brief here asserts, that “one qualified by character, integrity and learning has the right to practice law.” Indeed, this is precisely the way the Arizona court has phrased it: “[T]he practice of law is not a privilege but a right, conditioned solely on the requirement that a person have the necessary mental, physical and moral qualifications.” Application of Klahr, 102 Ariz., at 531, 433 P. 2d, at 979. See also Application of Levine, 97 Ariz. 88, 90-91, 397 P. 2d 205, 206-207 (1964), and Application of Burke, 87 Ariz. 336, 339, 351 P. 2d 169, 172 (1960).

The characterization of Bar admission as a right or as a privilege may be little more than an exercise in semantics. It seems to me that, whichever it may be, the State, in granting the authority to practice law, with what surely is the true privilege, not the right, to be entrusted with a client’s confidences, aspirations, freedom, life itself, property, and the very means of livelihood, demands something more of the applicant than a formal certificate of completion of a course of legal study and the ability acceptably to answer a series of questions on a Bar examination. It presumably demands what fundamentally is character. And it is character that a State holds out to the public when it authorizes an applicant to practice law.

9. Judges and Bar Examiners, of course, should hesitate to judge too strictly those seeking entrance to the profession. Certainly the impatience and far-ranging attitudes of youthful years are not, in themselves, disqualifying. That is part of the maturing process, especially for future lawyers who must study, examine, select, and develop their philosophies of life and of their profession. Mr. Justice Frankfurter expressed it well:

“The bar has not enjoyed prerogatives; it has been entrusted with anxious responsibilities. . . . From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as 'moral character.’
“History overwhelmingly establishes that many youths like the petitioner were drawn by the mirage of communism during the depression era, only to have their eyes later opened to reality. Such experiences no doubt may disclose a woolly mind or naive notions regarding the problems of society. But facts of history that we would be arbitrary in rejecting bar the presumption, let alone an irrebut-table presumption, that response to foolish, baseless hopes regarding the betterment of society made those who had entertained them but who later undoubtedly came to their senses and their sense of responsibility 'questionable characters.’ ” Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 247, 251 (1957) (concurring opinion).

10. An attorney, we sometimes tend to forget, is an officer of the court. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall., at 378. Perhaps we read too much into that phrase. But there is a distinct element of fact and of history in it. We have seen, of late, an overabundance of courtroom spectacle brought about by attorneys — frequently those who, being unlicensed in the particular State, are nevertheless permitted, by the court’s indulgence, to appear for clients in a given case — who give indications of ignoring their responsibility to the courts and to the judicial process. Question 27 bears upon this facet of an applicant’s character.

11. The plurality opinion acknowledges that Arizona has a legitimate interest in determining whether the applicant has the “qualities of character” requisite for the practice of law. But the opinion then goes on to prescribe when, in its judgment, the applicant has given a sufficient amount of information to the committee. I doubt if this Court is the proper tribunal to judge the sufficiency of material supplied for legal practice in Arizona. Of course there is a constitutional limit, but that limit is marked by the- relevant, by the excesses of unreasonableness and of harassment, and by the otherwise constitutionally forbidden. It should not be marked at an arbitrary point where the applicant, for reasons of convenience or assumed self-protection or contrariness, decides that enough is enough.

12. Finally, the State has a measure of a right to protect itself. Its area of possible vulnerability is nowhere greater than in its courts and in its judicial process. Courtroom events disclosed in recent litigation vividly demonstrate this. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 (1970); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 (1971). Assurance that applicant Baird at least professes to refrain from forceful and violent overthrow of the Government of which, upon admission, she will become a true and working part, and under which, for better or for worse, she has lived and, judging by her excellent education, has prospered and enjoyed some benefits, is a subject of legitimate inquiry.

As stated above, on this record I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona.

       The other is No. 18, In re Stolar, post, p. 23. See also No. 49, Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, post, p. 154.

       See, e. g., Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485 (1952); Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U. S. 399 (1958); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11 (1966); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967).

       See the cases cited in n. 2, supra. See also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960); American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 445 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting); cf. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958); Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399 (1961); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969).

       App. 18.

       Question No. 27, App. 18.

       Response of the Committee on Examinations and Admissions to Order to Show Cause. App. 4.

       Respondent has argued that even when an applicant has answered Question 25, listing the organizations to which she has belonged since the age of 16, Question 27 still serves a useful and legitimate function. Respondent urges:
      “Assume an answer including an organization by name such as ‘The Sons and Daughters of I Will Arise.’ This could truly be a Christian group with religious objectives. But also it could be an organization devoted to the objectives of Lenin, Stalin or any other deceased person whose teachings and objectives were not conducive to the continued security and welfare of our government and way of life.” Brief for Respondent 8.
      The organizations petitioner listed in response to question 25 were: Church Choir; Girl Scouts; Girls Athletic Association; Young Republicans; Young Democrats; Stanford Law Association; Law School Civil Rights Research Council. Respondent does not state which of these organizations may threaten the security of the Republic.

       The committee urges that it is entitled to demand an answer to Question 27 because:
      “Unless we are to conclude that one who truly and sincerely believes in the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence is also qualified to practice law in our Arizona courts, then an answer to this question is indeed appropriate. The Committee again emphasizes that a mere answer of ‘yes’ would not lead to an automatic rejection of the application. It would lead to an investigation and interrogation as to whether or not the applicant presently entertains the view that a violent overthrow of the United States Government is something to be sought after. If the answer to this inquiry was ‘yes’ then indeed we would reject the application and recommend against admission.” (Emphasis added.) Memorandum in Support of Response to Petition for Order to Show Cause, App. 5-6.

       [This opinion applies also to No. 18, In re Stolar, post, p. 23.]

       See 102 Ariz. XXIV, XXIX, and XXXVII, for the pertinent provisions of Rule 28 (c) in effect at the time Mrs. Baird submitted her application. The rule was amended, effective August 1, 1970, in ways not relevant here. See 106 Ariz. XXXI.

       The majority, of course, obviously would hold that Question 25 also was impermissible. In re Stolar, post, p. 23. Mrs. Baird, however, appears to have had no hesitancy in answering that inquiry.

       See Arizona Supreme Court Rule 28 (c).

       “The Committee would again emphasize that it has formed no judgment as to whether or not Sara Baird should or should not be recommended for admission to the Bar of this State to this Court.
      “The Committee would again emphasize to this Court that if the answer to question No. 27 is 'yes’ the Committee will then endeavor to ascertain if Sara Baird does adhere to the view that the overthrow of the Government of this State and of the United States by force and violence would be a desirable objective and that she would expect to actively support sucii views. If this is the conclusion reached by the Committee, it will undoubtedly refuse to recommend Sara Baird for admission to the Bar of the State of Arizona. Should the conclusion be that her membership is of a nominal character and that she does not participate and adhere to the views that a violent overthrow of our government is desirable, then the Committee would have no legal basis for refusing to recommend her for admission to practice law under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court . . . .” Respondent’s Brief 2.
      “The Committee, contrary to the repeated assertions and insinuations to the contrary in Petitioner’s Brief, has also made it abundantly clear that regardless of the political beliefs and views of Sara Baird it is only if she is found to actively believe in the notion and espouses an activist role in implementing the notion that our government be destroyed by force and violence that a favorable recommendation will be refused her by the Committee. . . .” Respondent’s Brief 3.
      “The Committee has not and cannot in good conscience certify to the Arizona Supreme Court that Sara Baird has the character and moral fitness to practice law if she does actively support and advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence.” Respondent’s Brief 6.
      “The issue is simple. ‘Is one who believes in and who is willing to work to undermine and destroy the Government of the United States qualified to be admitted to the practice of law?’ ” Respondent’s Brief 13.

       The Memorandum states as its conclusion:
      “The Committee would again emphasize that it has formed no judgment as to whether or not Sara Baird should or should not be recommended for admission to the Bar of this State to this Court.
      “The Committee would again emphasize to this Court that if the answer to question No. 27 is ‘yes’ the Committee will then endeavor to ascertain if Sara Baird does adhere to the view that the overthrow of the Government of this State and of the United States by force and violence would be a desirable objective and that she would expect to actively support such views. If this is the conclusion reached by the Committee, it will undoubtedly refuse to recommend Sara Baird for admission to the Bar of the State of Arizona. Should the conclusion be that her membership is of a nominal character and that she does not participate and adhere to the views that a violent overthrow of our government is desirable, then the Committee would have no legal basis for refusing to recommend her for admission to practice law . . . .”

       Respondent’s Brief 15.


author: Mr. Justice Black Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Harlan,

text:
    IN RE STOLAR
    No. 18.
    Argued December 9, 1969 Reargued October 14-15, 1970
    Decided February 23, 1971

      Blacic, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion in which Douglas, BreNNAN, and Marshall, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 31. HarlaN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 34. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, ante, p. 10. BlackmuN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Burger, C. J., and HarlaN and White, JJ., joined, post, p. 31.

      Leonard B. Boudin reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was David Rosenberg.

      Robert D. Macklin, Assistant Attorney General, re-argued the cause for the State of Ohio and the Columbus Bar Association. With him on the brief were Paul W. Brown, Attorney General, Shelby V. Hutchins, and William H. Schneider.

   Mr. Justice Black

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall join.

This is the second of two cases involving the refusal of States to admit applicants to practice law because they declined to answer questions relating to their beliefs about government and their affiliations with organizations suspected of advocating the overthrow of government by force. These cases, which concern inquisitions about loyalty and government overthrow, are relics of a turbulent period known as the “McCarthy era,” which drew its name from Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin. We have just referred in our opinion in Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, ante, p. 1, to the confusion and uncertainty created by past cases in this constitutional field. The central question in all of them has been the same, whether involving lawyers, doctors, marine workers, or State or Federal Government employees, namely: to what extent does the First or Fifth Amendment or other constitutional provision protect persons against governmental intrusion and invasion into private beliefs and views that have not ripened into any punishable conduct? Without attempting in that case to bring about a complete reconciliation of all that this Court has previously said about this particular phase of First Amendment protection, we held that under the circumstances present there, Mrs. Baird could not, consistently with the First Amendment, be denied a state license to practice law because she refused to state whether she had belonged to the Communist Party or any organization that advocated overthrow of the United States Government by force. Here we hold that Stolar’s refusals to answer certain questions asked him by the Ohio Bar Committee were also protected by the First Amendment.

The facts are these: Stolar, whose home is in Rochester, New York, has an A. B. degree from the University of Rochester and received an LL. B. degree from New York University Law School in 1968. The dean of that school has certified that Stolar has received instructions in legal ethics, has a good moral character, and has sufficient knowledge and ability to discharge the duties of an attorney at law. He has a license to practice law in New York State. To become a member of the New York Bar, Stolar was asked and answered the following questions, along with many others:

“18. State whether you have participated in activities of a public or patriotic nature or in philanthropic, religious, or social services? If so, state the facts fully.
“I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout and Explorer Scout during elementary and high school.
“I also participated fully in my Temple’s religious education programs until I went to college.
“In addition, my time spent as a VISTA is a service of the above described nature.
“19. Do you believe in the principles underlying the form of government of the United States? Yes.
“20. State whether you have been or are a member of any party or organisation engaged in propagating or pledged to effect changes in the form of government provided for by the United States Constitution, or in advancing the interests of a foreign country? If so, state the facts fully. No. (Emphasis supplied in part.)
“21. Can you conscientiously, and do you, affirm, without any mental reservation, that you have been and are loyal to the Government of the United States? Yes.
“24. (a) Have you studied the Canons of Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association? Yes.
“(b) Do you unconditionally subscribe to the same? Yes.
“(c) Will you conscientiously endeavor to conform your professional conduct to them? Yes.”

In 1969 Mr. Stolar applied to the Ohio Bar for admission to practice. He made available to Ohio all the information he had previously given the New York Bar Committee, including his answers to the New York questions stated above. Stolar then answered a long series of questions posed by the Ohio committee. In response to oral interrogation he stated:

“that he is not now and has never been a member of the Communist Party, of any socialist party, or of the Students for a Democratic Society, and . . . that he has signed the standard U. S. Army pre-induction security oath, which has reference to the ‘Attorney General’s List.’ ”

However, Stolar declined to answer certain questions on the Ohio application on the grounds they infringed his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. These questions were:

“12. State whether you have been, or presently are ... (g) a member of any organization which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force ....
“13. List the names and addresses of all clubs, societies or organizations of which you are or have been a member.”
“7. List the names and addresses of all clubs, societies or organizations of which you are or have been a member since registering as a law student.”

Because of his refusal to answer these questions, one member of the committee who investigated Stolar recommended that he be denied admission. The other stated:

“I found Mr. Stolar to be honest and forthright. His statements evidenced also a certain commitment to principle for its own sake, an unusually great amount of social awareness, and a degree of self-interest not reprehensible. On the basis of the interview and the background actually revealed in Mr. Stolar’s applications I have no reluctance to recommend Mr. Stolar for admission to the practice of law.”

The full committee then recommended that petitioner’s application to take the Ohio Bar examination be denied. The Ohio Supreme Court approved the committee’s recommendation without opinion. We granted certiorari. 396 U. S. 816.

We deal first with Ohio’s demands that petitioner Martin Stolar list all the organizations to which he has belonged since registering as a law student and those of which he has ever been a member. In our view requiring a Bar applicant to answer these questions is impermissible in light of the First Amendment, as was made clear in Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960). At issue in Shelton was an Arkansas statute that required every state teacher, as a condition of employment, to file an affidavit listing every organization to which he had belonged within the preceding five years. The Court noted that this requirement impinged upon the teacher’s right to freedom of association because it placed “pressure upon a teacher to avoid any ties which might displease those who control his professional destiny . . . .” Id., at 486. Similarly here, the listing of an organization considered by committee members to be controversial or “subversive” is likely to cause delay and extensive interrogation or simply denial of admission to the Bar. Respondent committee frankly suggests that the listing of an organization which it felt “espoused illegal aims” would cause it to “investigate further.” Law students who know they must survive this screening process before practicing their profession are encouraged to protect their future by shunning unpopular or controversial organizations. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958).

The committee suggests its “listing” question serves a legitimate interest because it needs to know whether an applicant has belonged to an organization which has “espoused illegal aims” and whether the applicant himself has espoused such aims. But the First Amendment prohibits Ohio from penalizing an applicant by denying him admission to the Bar solely because of his membership in an organization. Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, supra; cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 266 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 607 (1967). Nor may the State penalize petitioner solely because he personally, as the committee suggests, “espouses illegal aims.” See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304 (1940); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, supra.

The committee also argues it needs answers to Questions 7 and 13 because responses might direct its attention to persons who have known an applicant and who could supply information relevant to his qualifications. Undoubtedly Ohio has a legitimate interest in determining whether an applicant has “the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law.” Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, supra. But petitioner Stolar, already a member in good standing of the New York Bar, supplied the Ohio committee with extensive personal and professional information as well as numerous character references to enable it to make the necessary investigation and determination. Moreover, even though irrelevant to his fitness to practice law, Stolar’s answers to questions on the New York application provided Ohio with substantially the information it was seeking by Questions 7, 12 (g), and 13. The information contained in the two applications included petitioner’s law school; every address at which he had ever lived; the names, addresses, and occupations of his parents; the names and addresses of his elementary school, his high school and high school principal; the names of nine former employers (which included three different law firms for which he had done summer work); his “criminal record” (which consisted of two speeding convictions); nine different people as character references (two of whom had known Stolar for more than 20 years); and extensive information about his previous activities (e. g., law school moot court, graduate advisor at N. Y. U., Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Explorer Scout, and his temple’s religious education programs).

We conclude also that Ohio may not require an applicant for admission to the Bar to state whether he has been or is a “member of any organization which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force.” As we noted above, the First Amendment prohibits Ohio from penalizing a man solely because he is a member of a particular organization. See also Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, supra. Since this is true, we can see no legitimate state interest which is served by a question which sweeps so broadly into areas of belief and association protected against government invasion. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304 (1940); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 266 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 607 (1967); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, supra; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360 (1964).

There is not one word in this entire record that reflects adversely on Mr. Stolar’s moral character or his professional competence. Although there were three questions that he did not answer with a simple “yes” or “no,” he did answer all of the Committee’s questions relevant to his fitness and competence to practice law. It is difficult if not impossible to see how the State of Ohio could have been obstructed or frustrated to any extent in determining Mr. Stolar’s fitness to practice law by his failure to answer the questions more fully. The record shows a young man who, from his boyhood up, had no adverse marks except for two speeding convictions. He answered numerous prying questions about personal affairs that could hardly have been necessary for a State interested only in whether he would make an honest lawyer faithful to his clients. The questions he did not answer related only to his beliefs and associations, both protected by the First Amendment. The State points to not one overt act on Stolar’s part that even suggests a possible reason for denying his application. Here, as in Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, it was a denial of a Bar applicant’s First Amendment rights to refuse him admission simply because he declined to answer questions about his beliefs and associations.

The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White, see ante, p. 10.]

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring in the judgment.

Ohio’s Questions 7 and 13 are plainly unconstitutional under Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479. In addition, Question 12 (g) suffers from the same constitutional deficiency as does Arizona’s Question 27 in Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, ante, p. 1. For these reasons I agree that the judgment before us must be reversed.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice White join, dissenting.

This case, also argued here for the second time, presents another instance of a well-educated (academic degree from the University of Rochester; law degree from New York University) and obviously able young person who seeks admission to the Bar, but, to an extent at least, upon his own terms. His case is made the more acute and appealing because he already has been admitted to practice in the State of New York but now finds himself thwarted in a like endeavor in Ohio. The decisions in Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36 (1961), and In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 (1961), are again challenged.

The plurality opinion has set forth the pertinent questions asked of Martin Robert Stolar, when he sought admission to the New York Bar in 1968, and Stolar’s answers to those questions. At that time he was willing to go so far as specifically to profess even his belief in the principles underlying the form of government of the United States and his loyalty to that government, and also, just as specifically, to go so far as to deny that he was, or ever had been, a member of any party or organization pledged to effect changes in the form of our government or engaged in advancing the interest of a foreign country. The propriety of these very questions, which Stolar answered apparently without hesitation in New York in 1968, was seriously questioned subsequently in Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 299 P. Supp. 117, 130 (SDNY 1969), now affirmed, post, p. 154.

In 1969, in Ohio, Stolar apparently again had no hesitation in professing at oral interview that he was not, and never had been, a member of the Communist Party. But, although the one seems to include the other, he flatly refused, on stated Fifth Amendment grounds, to say (Question 12 (g)) whether he was or had been a member of any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force. He also refused, on Fifth Amendment grounds, to list (Questions 13 and 7) organizations of which he was or had been a member.

I may assume, for present purposes, that the general and broadly phrased list-your-organizations inquiries, that is, Questions 13 and 7, are improper and impermissible under the Court’s holding, by another five-to-four vote, in Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960), despite the presence of what seems to me to be a somewhat significant difference between nontenured school teachers and about-to-be-licensed attorneys. This assumption, however, does not terminate Stolar’s case, for Question 12 (g), with its specific inquiry about membership in organizations advocating overthrow by force, remains to be considered.

My position with respect to a refusal to respond to a question such as Question 12 (g) is set forth in my dissent in Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, ante, p. 11, and needs no detailed repetition here. I note only (a) the inconsistency of Stolar’s willingness to respond orally and his unwillingness to respond in writing, and (b) that, here again, membership, present or past, in an organization of the kind specified, although relevant in the Bar admission context, in and of itself is not conclusive upon the issue of admission to the Bar. Ohio concedes, as Arizona did in Baird, that the significance lies in something more than mere membership.

Neither am I content with the conclusion reached in the plurality opinion that Stolar’s responses to New York in 1968 should suffice for responses to Ohio in 1969. That kind of reasoning would compel one to conclude that because an applicant is admitted to the Bar of one State, he surely must be admitted to the Bar of any other State. We might reach that frontier one day on some new and as yet undeveloped constitutional concept, but I doubt whether we have reached it yet. New York’s range of inquiry and her area of particular interest may very well differ from Ohio’s, and each may be constitutionally permissible. Further, an answer true in 1968 may not be true at all in 1969. Time passes and changes can take place even within a few months.

Although I readily concede that the Ohio question (just as the Arizona question in Baird) could have been better phrased, the approach of the plurality for reversal to the inquiry is, I feel, somewhat unrealistic. As in Baird, and as noted above, it is not a mere question of membership present or past. It is a question of knowing membership and of willingness to participate in the forceful destruction of government. This is the crux. To forestall inquiry at the threshold stultifies Ohio's appropriate concern as to faithful adherence to a lawyer's trust when the State is about to vest great professional and fiduciary power in those who seek entrance to the Bar.

On this record, I would affirm.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

concurring in No. 49, post, p. 154, and dissenting in No. 15, ante, p. 1, and No. 18.

In joining Mr. Justice Stewart’s opinion for the Court in the Wadmond case, No. 49, post, p. 154, and Mr. Justice Blackmun’s dissenting opinions in the Baird case, No. 15, ante, p. 11, and in the present case, I am constrained to add these remarks.

My Brother Black’s opinion announcing the judgments of the Court in Baird and in the present case, and his dissenting opinion in the Wadmond case, could easily leave the impression that the three States involved are denying Bar admission to professionally qualified candidates solely by reason of their membership in so-called subversive organizations, irrespective of whether that membership is born of a purely philosophical cast of mind or of a specific purpose to engage in illegal action, or that these States are at least trying to discourage prospective Bar candidates from joining such organizations. In the latter respect, my Brother Marshall’s opinion, post, p. 185, seems to me to lend itself to a similar interpretation. If anything in these records could fairly be taken as pointing to either such conclusion, I would be found on the “reversing” side of these cases. The records, however, adumbrated by the representations of the responsible lawyers who appeared for the States, in my opinion belie any such inferences. They show no more than a refusal to certify candidates who deliberately, albeit in good faith, refuse to assist the Bar-admission authorities in their “fitness” investigations by declining fully to answer the questionnaires.

I could hardly believe that anyone would dispute a State’s right to refuse admission to the Bar to an applicant who avowed or was shown to possess a dedication to overthrowing governmental authority by force or to supplanting the rule of law by incitement to individual or group violence as the best means of attaining desired goals. One could question the efficacy or wisdom of questionnaires of the kind involved in these cases as a means of weeding out occasional misfits from the general run of Bar candidates, or criticize as unduly complicated or pervasive some aspects of such questionnaires. And one may also be understanding of the considerations which in this day and age breed lawsuits like these. But we should nonetheless take care lest the indulging of such points of view lead us into warped constitutional decision.

In my opinion the course chosen by these States cannot be said to be forbidden by the Constitution. I do not consider that the “less drastic means” test which has been applied in some First Amendment cases, see NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 307-308 (1964), and cases cited therein, suffices to justify this Court in assuming general oversight of state investigatory procedures relating to Bar admissions. Nor do I think that the questioning of candidates as to their beliefs in violent overthrow necessarily runs afoul of true First Amendment concerns. I do not dispute that the First Amendment, as reflected in the Fourteenth, prevents States from denying admission to candidates merely because of theoretical beliefs in the “right” of revolution, but I do maintain that there is no constitutional barrier to denying admission to those who seek entry to the profession for the very purpose of doing away with the orderly processes of law, and that temperate inquiry into the character of their beliefs in this regard, which is all that is shown here, is a relevant and permissible course to that end. It seems to me little short of chimerical to suggest that the independence of the Bar is threatened unless this Court steps in and puts a constitutional end to such a practice. Cf. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (1959).

While I hope that I am no less sensitive than others on the Court to First Amendment values, I must say that the pervasive supervision over state Bar admission procedures which is now asked of us would work a most extravagant expansion of the current “chilling effects” approach to First Amendment doctrine. Knowing something of the great importance which the New York Bar attaches to the independence of the individual lawyer, I have little doubt but that the candidates involved in Wadmond will promptly gain admission to the Bar if they straightforwardly answer the inquiries put to them without further ado. And I should be greatly surprised if the same were not true as to Mrs. Baird and Mr. Stolar in Arizona and Ohio. But if I am mistaken and it should develop that any of these candidates are excluded simply because of unorthodox or unpopular beliefs, it would then be time enough for this Court to intervene.

      The other is No. 15, Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, ante, p. 1. Cf. No. 49, Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, post, p. 154.

      While petitioners in Nos. 15 and 18 have also sought to assert Fifth Amendment claims against self-incrimination, today’s opinions have treated all the cases only in terms of First Amendment considerations, and I too shall proceed on that basis.