|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50842" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>In re Griffiths</name><docketNumber>71-1336</docketNumber><term>1972</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Fre Le Poole Griffiths</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">State Bar Examining Committee of Connecticut</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1973-01-09</date><date type="decided">1973-06-25</date><date type="granted">1972-06-07</date></dates><citation><volume>413</volume><page>717</page><year>1973</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14770</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/717/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>Fre Le Poole Griffiths, a citizen of the Netherlands, came to the United States in 1965 as a visitor. In 1967, she married a U.S. citizen and became a resident of Connecticut. She then attended Yale Law School and applied to take the Connecticut Bar in 1970. Despite the County Bar Association finding her qualified in every aspect, she was denied the chance to sit for the exam due to the fact that she was not a U.S. citizen, which Rule 8(1) of the Connecticut Practice Book of 1963 required. Griffiths requested judicial relief and argued that the rule was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Superior Court of Connecticut denied her request for judicial relief and the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Fre Le Poole Griffiths, a citizen of the Netherlands, came to the United States in 1965 as a visitor. In 1967, she married a U.S. citizen and became a resident of Connecticut. She then attended Yale Law School and applied to take the Connecticut Bar in 1970. Despite the County Bar Association finding her qualified in every aspect, she was denied the chance to sit for the exam due to the fact that she was not a U.S. citizen, which Rule 8(1) of the Connecticut Practice Book of 1963 required. Griffiths requested judicial relief and argued that the rule was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Superior Court of Connecticut denied her request for judicial relief and the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>A requirement that applicants to the state bar be United States citizens violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Court held that, while it is within a state’s rights to carefully select who may practice law, to deny an immigrant solely on their immigrant status is unconstitutional. A lawfully admitted resident alien is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Because classifications based on nationality are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, the state must meet a high burden to justify such a classification. In this case, the state bar association did not meet that burden because there is no meaningful connection between citizenship and the qualifications for being a lawyer. The United States has always “welcomed and [drawn] strength from the immigration of aliens,” and their social and economic contributions to the country have been innumerable. Additionally, there is precedent to support the proposition that citizenship does not matter in reference to practicing law in the US.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the government should be justified in requiring certain jobs to be held by citizens, as the government has a vested interest in ensuring that specialized positions such as lawyers are held by citizens to, among other things, ensure their “moral character.” In his separate dissent, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote that, as an “officer of the court,” states retain the right to exclude aliens from practicing the law. The Constitution grants states the right to determine who is appropriate for representing the state in court, even if that should mean excluding anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen. Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>A requirement that applicants to the state bar be United States citizens violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Court held that, while it is within a state’s rights to carefully select who may practice law, to deny an immigrant solely on their immigrant status is unconstitutional. A lawfully admitted resident alien is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Because classifications based on nationality are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, the state must meet a high burden to justify such a classification. In this case, the state bar association did not meet that burden because there is no meaningful connection between citizenship and the qualifications for being a lawyer. The United States has always “welcomed and [drawn] strength from the immigration of aliens,” and their social and economic contributions to the country have been innumerable. Additionally, there is precedent to support the proposition that citizenship does not matter in reference to practicing law in the US.
|
|
|
Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the government should be justified in requiring certain jobs to be held by citizens, as the government has a vested interest in ensuring that specialized positions such as lawyers are held by citizens to, among other things, ensure their “moral character.” In his separate dissent, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote that, as an “officer of the court,” states retain the right to exclude aliens from practicing the law. The Constitution grants states the right to determine who is appropriate for representing the state in court, even if that should mean excluding anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen. Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for the appellant"><name>R. David Broiles</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/r_david_broiles</href></advocate><advocate for="for the appellee"><name>George Tiernan</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/george_tiernan</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party=""><description /><votes majority="7" minority="2"><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1336</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_71-1336.json</raw_file></source></case> |
