In Re Anastaplo

1961-04-24

Headline: Court upholds Illinois bar's refusal to admit a law instructor who refused to answer questions about Communist Party membership, allowing states to bar applicants who obstruct character-and-fitness inquiries.

Holding: The Court held that Illinois did not violate the Constitution by denying bar admission to a candidate who, after adequate warning, refused to answer questions about Communist Party membership and thereby obstructed the committee's character inquiry.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to deny bar admission for refusing to answer character questions.
Affirms state power to question Communist Party membership during admissions.
Makes admission conditional on cooperation with character-and-fitness investigations.

Topics: bar admissions, political association questions, First Amendment rights, professional licensing

Summary

Background

George Anastaplo, a University of Chicago instructor who had passed the Illinois bar exam, was denied admission because he refused to answer committee questions about Communist Party membership. The Committee on Character and Fitness and the Illinois Supreme Court conducted hearings; the committee had many affidavits saying he had good moral character but the committee voted 11–6 not to certify him because his refusals obstructed the committee’s inquiry. The State relied on its rule that candidates must answer relevant questions.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the State gave adequate warning and whether denying him was arbitrary or discriminatory. Relying on its companion ruling in Konigsberg, the majority said a state may deny a privilege like bar admission when an applicant, after warning, refuses to answer material questions that obstruct the examination. The Court found Anastaplo had been warned, that the committee could properly probe Communist Party membership, and that exclusion here was not unconstitutional.

Real world impact

This ruling lets states require more complete answers in character inquiries and permits withholding a law license from applicants who persistently refuse to cooperate. It leaves open that an applicant may still be admitted if he later answers the questions. The decision follows companion cases and will guide how courts and bar committees balance applicant rights against state licensing interests.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by three others, dissented, arguing the denial violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections for speech and association because the record contained no evidence of disloyalty and the exclusion punished protected beliefs. Justice Brennan joined and added that this case conflicted with prior protections against shifting burdens to applicants.