Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.

Background

Raphael Konigsberg, a recent law school graduate who passed the California bar exam, was denied certification to practice law after state bar examiners held hearings about his political beliefs and associations. The Committee questioned him mainly about possible Communist ties. Konigsberg refused to answer some questions about his associations, saying the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected those matters. The Committee concluded he had not proved good moral character and had not shown he did not advocate overthrow of government. The California Supreme Court denied his petition for review without an opinion and three justices dissented.

Reasoning

The high court first found Konigsberg had raised his constitutional claims in state court, so it could hear them. On the merits, the Court asked whether the record contained reliable evidence to support doubts about his honesty, loyalty, or advocacy of violent overthrow. It noted many written character testimonials, his military service, and his editorials, none of which advocated violence. The only evidence of Communist involvement was weak testimony about attendance at a meeting many years earlier. The Court concluded the record did not rationally support denying admission and that inferences drawn from his refusal to answer were unwarranted when his objections were not frivolous.

Real world impact

The decision protects applicants from being excluded for unpopular political views absent reliable evidence of wrongdoing. State bars retain power to investigate, but they must show rational evidence before denying admission. The ruling did not decide whether refusal to answer can ever be an independent ground to deny admission; the case is sent back to the state court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Two justices would have avoided review or upheld the state's process. They argued the state could refuse admission when an applicant blocks relevant questioning about fitness.