Bernal v. Fainter

Background

The case was brought by a native of Mexico who is a lawful resident and works as a paralegal helping migrant farmworkers. He applied in 1978 to become a Texas notary public so he could administer oaths and notarize statements for clients, but the Texas Secretary of State denied his application because state law required notaries to be U.S. citizens (Article 5949(2)). He sued, the federal District Court ruled for him under strict review, a divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed under a simpler test, and the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether excluding resident noncitizens from being notaries violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court explained that laws excluding aliens normally face strict judicial scrutiny unless the position involves core governmental functions under the narrow “political-function” exception. Texas argued notaries perform important public duties, but the Court found notary tasks are largely clerical and ministerial, not central to self-government. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court rejected the State’s reasons — that notaries must be familiar with state law or that their testimony must be reliably available — because the State offered no evidence and had no testing or less restrictive alternatives. The Court held the citizenship requirement unconstitutional.

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates Texas’s blanket citizen requirement for notaries and permits resident noncitizens to seek appointment. That change affects paralegals, legal-aid workers, and immigrant clients who rely on notarization. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, citing his earlier Sugarman opinion for the reasons he opposed that Court approach.