Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.

Background

An applicant who had passed California’s bar exams sought admission to practice law. The California Committee of Bar Examiners questioned him about past or present membership in the Communist Party. He repeatedly refused to answer those questions. After this Court previously reversed an initial denial and sent the case back, the Committee held new hearings, again concluded the refusals obstructed its investigation, and declined to certify him. The California Supreme Court refused review and denied direct admission, and the case returned here.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a State may deny bar admission when an applicant, after being warned, refuses to answer unprivileged questions that are substantially relevant to fitness to practice. The majority held that a State may require cooperation in such investigations and may deny admission where a refusal materially obstructs the committee’s fact-finding. The Court explained that inquiries tied to whether an applicant advocates violent overthrow are relevant and that freedom of speech and association are not absolute in this administrative setting. The Court also said the Speiser decision did not control because it was unclear under California law that the State had shifted the ultimate burden of proof to the applicant.

Real world impact

The ruling allows state bar authorities to insist upon answers to relevant questions about political associations and to refuse certification when refusals obstruct investigation after warning. Bar applicants who decline relevant questioning risk exclusion; committees retain discretion but must give warning and remain subject to judicial review.

Dissents or concurrances

Dissenting Justices argued the decision chills free speech and association, stressed the lack of evidence of disloyalty here, and urged that Speiser should protect the applicant.