Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM

1957-05-06

Headline: Court overturns New Mexico’s refusal to let a law graduate take the bar, ruling denial based on old arrests, aliases, and past Communist membership violated fair process and must be reconsidered.

Holding: The Court held that New Mexico denied a law graduate his constitutional right to fair procedure by refusing bar examination access based on decades-old Communist membership, arrests without conviction, and use of aliases.

Real World Impact:

Prevents states from excluding applicants for old political beliefs without current evidence.
Limits secret or stale evidence as the sole basis to deny professional licenses.
Protects applicants who show recent good character and community or military service.

Topics: bar admission, fair process, political beliefs, professional licensing

Summary

Background

Rudolph Schware was a recent law school graduate who applied to take New Mexico’s bar exam. The Board of Bar Examiners refused him permission to sit for the exam, citing his use of aliases in the 1930s, several arrests without convictions, and membership in the Communist Party from 1932 to 1940. Schware testified, presented many character witnesses, and showed military service and good conduct in the years since. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the denial, and Schware asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision as a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of fair procedures.

Reasoning

The main question was whether denying him the chance to qualify for the bar violated the Due Process Clause (the Constitution’s guarantee of fair procedures). The Court found no evidence of bad conduct in the past fifteen years. Arrests decades earlier led to no convictions. The aliases were used to avoid anti-Jewish discrimination while working. Past membership in the Communist Party alone did not prove present unfitness. Given Schware’s strong, recent evidence of good character, the Court held that the state’s reasons were not a rational basis to deny him the opportunity to qualify for the profession.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the New Mexico decision and sent the case back for action consistent with this opinion. The ruling limits states from excluding people from licensed professions based only on old, unproven, or secret evidence of political association or arrests without conviction. Licensing boards must rely on current, rational proof of unfitness before denying admission.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but emphasized that states traditionally judge "moral character," and deference is due — yet the specific, dogmatic inference about old Communist ties here violated fair procedure.