In Re Griffiths

1973-06-25

Headline: State rule barring noncitizens from practicing law is struck down, allowing resident aliens to seek bar admission and limiting states’ ability to exclude noncitizen lawyers.

Holding: The Court held that Connecticut’s blanket citizenship requirement for bar admission violates the Equal Protection Clause and cannot categorically exclude resident noncitizens from practicing law.

Real World Impact:

Allows resident noncitizens to apply for state bar admission.
Requires states to justify citizenship limits on lawyers individually.
Ends automatic, statewide bans on noncitizen lawyers like Connecticut’s rule.

Topics: immigration and work rights, professional licensing, equal protection, lawyer admission

Summary

Background

A Dutch-born resident, Fre Le Poole Griffiths, moved to the United States in 1965, married a U.S. citizen in 1967, and lived in Connecticut. After graduating law school she applied in 1970 to take Connecticut’s bar exam. A Connecticut rule (Rule 8(1)) required U.S. citizenship, so the County Bar refused her application and Connecticut courts upheld that denial. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the state court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a blanket citizenship requirement for bar admission unfairly discriminates against resident noncitizens. The Court treated classifications based on alienage as highly suspect and said the State must show a substantial and necessary interest to justify excluding an entire class. Connecticut argued that lawyers are officers of the court and citizenship assures loyalty. The Court rejected that sweep, finding no necessary link between citizenship and fitness to practice and noting existing safeguards such as oaths, character checks, examinations, and post-admission discipline.

Real world impact

The Court held the citizenship rule unconstitutional, so resident noncitizens like Griffiths cannot be categorically barred from becoming lawyers in Connecticut. The case was reversed and sent back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. States must assess applicants case by case and justify any citizenship-based limits rather than maintain automatic bans.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger (joined by Justice Rehnquist) dissented, arguing States have traditional power to regulate professions and that lawyers’ special powers justify citizenship qualifications.