Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Corporations
353 U.S. 232 (1957)
Updated
Corporationsbar admissiondue processgood moral characterDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentrational connectionarbitrary exclusion
Facts
New Mexico required bar applicants to show good moral character before being allowed to sit for the bar examination. Schware disclosed on his application that he had used aliases in the 1930s and had been arrested several times before 1940, and at a later hearing he also testified about his Communist Party membership from 1932 to 1940. At the hearing, Schware presented testimony and letters from professors, classmates, associates, and his rabbi attesting to his good character, while the Board introduced no evidence. The Board denied his application based on his prior use of aliases, former connection with subversive organizations, and record of arrests.
Issue
Whether New Mexico denied Schware due process by refusing to let him take the bar examination on the ground that he had not shown good moral character. More specifically, the question was whether the record rationally supported a finding that Schware was presently morally unfit to practice law.
Rule
A State may require high qualifications for admission to the bar, including good moral character, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. State officials may not exclude an applicant when there is no basis in the record for finding that he fails to meet the standard, or when the exclusion is arbitrary or invidiously discriminatory.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Ohio, the Franklin Board of Licensure requires applicants for accountant licenses to show good moral character before taking the licensing exam. Lena Ortiz is denied permission to sit for the exam solely because, 18 years earlier, she was twice arrested during a housing protest in Cleveland, but charges were never filed, and she has since submitted uncontradicted letters from employers and professors attesting to her honesty and reliability.
If Lena challenges the denial under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the strongest argument?
Explanation. A state may require good moral character, but the qualification and its application must bear a rational connection to present fitness or capacity to practice the profession. The majority stressed that mere arrests, especially when no charges were filed and no conviction resulted, have very little probative value. Where the record also contains substantial, undisputed evidence of present good character, denial lacks a rational evidentiary basis and violates due process.