325 U.S.

561
65 S.Ct. 1307
89 L.Ed. 1795

In re SUMMERS.
No. 205.
Argued April 27-30, 1945.
Decided June 11, 1945.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1945.

See 66 S.Ct. 94.

Mr. Julien Cornell, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Wines, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from this Court under Section 237(b) of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. 344(b), to review the action of the Supreme Court
of Illinois in denying petitioner's prayer for admission to the practice of law in
that state. It was alleged that the denial was 'on the sole ground that he is a
conscientious objector to war' or to phrase petitioner's contention slightly
differen ly 'because of his conscientious scruples against participation in war.'
Petitioner challenges here the right of the Supreme Court to exclude him from
the bar under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States which secured to him protection against state
action in violation of the principles of the First Amendment.1 Because of the
importance of the tendered issue in the domain of civil rights, we granted
certiorari.2 323 U.S. 705, 65 S.Ct. 274.

Since the proceedings were not treated as judicial by the Supreme Court of
Illinois, the record is not in the customary form. It shows accurately, however,
the steps by which the issue was developed and the action of the Supreme
Court on the prayer for admission to the practice of law in the State of Illinois.
From the record it appears that Clyde Wilson Summers has complied with all
prerequisites for admission to the bar of Illinois except that he has not obtained

the certificate of the Committee on Character and Fitness. Cf. Illinois Revised
Statutes 1943, c. 110, 259.58. No report appears in the record from the
Committee. An unofficial letter from the Secretary gives his personal views.3 A
petition was filed in the Supreme Court on August 2, 1943, which alleged that
petitioner was informed in January, 1943, that the Committee declined to sign a
favorable certificate. The petition set out that the sole reason for the
Committee's refusal was that petitioner was a conscientious objector to war, and
averred that such reason did not justify his exclusion because of the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The denial of the petition for admission
is informal. It consists of a letter of September 20, 1943, to the Secretary of the
Committee which is set out Below,4 a letter of the same date toMr. Summers
and a third letter of March 22, 1944, to Mr. Summers' attorney on petition for
rehearing. These latter two letters are set out in note 8.
3

The answer of the Justices to these allegations does not appear in the record
which was transmitted from the Supreme Court of Illinois to this Court but in
their return to the rule to show cause why certiorari should not be granted. The
answer is two-fold: First, that the proceedings were not a matter of judicial
cognizance in Illinois and that no case or controversy exists in this Court under
Article III of the Federal Constitution; second, that assuming the sole ground
for refusing to petitioner admission to practice was his profession of
conscientious objection to military service, such refusal did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment because the requirement for applicants for admission to
the bar to take an oath to support the Constitution of Illinois could not be met.
In view of his religious affirmations, petitioner could not agree, freely, to serve
in the Illinois militia. Therefore petitioner was not barred because of his
religion but because he could not in good faith take the prescribed oath, even
though he might be willing to do so. We turn to consideration of the Justices'
contentions.

Case or Controversy. The return of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices
states that the correspondence and communications of petitioner with the
Justices were not spread upon the records of the Supreme Court of Illinois and
that under the law of Illinois this petition for admission to the bar does not
constitute a case or controversy or a judicial proceeding but is a mere
application for appointment as an officer of the court.5 We of course accept this
authoritative commentary upon the law of Illinois as establishing for that state
the non-judicial character of an application for admission to the bar.6 We take it
that the law of Illinois treats the action of the Supreme Court on this petition as
a ministerial act which is performed by virtue of the judicial power, such as the
appointment of a clerk or bailiff or the specification of the requirements of
eligibility or the course of study for applicants for admission to the bar, rather

than a judicial proceeding.

5

For the purpose of determining whether the action of the Supreme Court of
Illinois in denying Summers' petition for an order for admission to practice law
in Illinois is a judgment in a judicial proceeding which involves a case or
controversy reviewable in this Court under Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, of the
Constitution of the United States,7 we must for ourselves appraise the
circumstances of the refusal. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S.
249, 259, 53 S.Ct. 345, 346, 77 L.Ed. 730, 87 A.L.R. 1191. Cf. Bridges v.
California, 314 U.S. 252, 259, 260, 62 S.Ct. 190, 192, 86 L.Ed. 192; Nixon v.
Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 88, 52 S.Ct. 484, 487, 76 L.Ed. 984, 88 A.L.R. 458; First
National Bank of Hartford, Wis. v. Hartford, 273 U.S. 548, 552, 47 S.Ct. 462,
463, 71 L.Ed. 767, 59 A.L.R. 1; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 324, 42 S.Ct.
124, 126, 66 L.Ed. 254, 27 A.L.R. 375.

A case arises, within the meaning of the Constitution, when any question
respecting the Constitution, treatise or laws of the United States has assumed
'such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting on it.' Osborn v. Bank,
9 Wheat. 738, 819, 6 L.Ed. 204. The Court was then considering the power of
the bank to sue in the federal courts. A declaration on rights as they stand must
be sought, not on rights which may arise in the future, Prentis v. Atlantic Coast
Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed. 150, and there must be
an actual controversy over an issue, not a desire for an abstract declaration of
the law. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361, 31 S.Ct. 250, 255, 55
L.Ed. 246; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S.Ct. 274, 275, 66 L.Ed.
499. The form of the proceeding is not significant. It is the nature and effect
which is controlling. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 259,
53 S.Ct. 345, 346, 77 L.Ed. 730, 87 A.L.R. 1191.

The brief for the Justices raises the question as to who are the adversary parties.
The petition in the state court was entitled, 'Clyde Wilson, Summers, Petitioner,
v. Committee on Character and Fitness for Third Appellate District,
Respondent.' The prayer sought relief against those named as respondents. The
record does not show that any process issued or that any appearance was made.
Our rule on the petition for certiorari required the Supreme Court of Illinois to
show cause why a record should not be certified and the writ of certiorari
granted. The return was by the Justices, not by t e Court. The Supreme Court of
Illinois, however, concluded that the 'report of the Committee on Character and
Fitness should be sustained.' Thus it considered the petition on its merits. While
no entry was placed by the Clerk in the file, on a docket, or on a judgment roll,
the Court took cognizance of the petition and passed an order which is
validated by the signature of the presiding officer.8 Where relief is thus sought

in a state court against the action of a committee, appointed to advise the court,
and the court takes cognizance of the complaint without requiring the
appearance of the committee or its members, we think the consideration of the
petition by the Supreme Court, the body which has authority itself by its own
act to give the relief sought, makes the proceeding adversary in the sense of a
true case or controversy.
8

A claim of a present right to admission to the bar of a state and a denial of that
right is a controversy. When the claim is made in a state court and a denial of
the right is made by judicial order, it is a case which may be reviewed under
Article III of the Constitution when federal questions are raised and proper
steps taken to that end, in this Court.9

Disqualification Under Illinois Constitution. The Justices justify their refusal to

admit petitioner to practice before the courts of Illinois on th ground of
petitioner's inability to take in good faith the required oath to support the
Constitution of Illinois. His inability to take such an oath, the justices submit,
shows that the Committee on Character and Fitness properly refused to certify
to his moral character and moral fitness to be an officer of the Court, charged
with the administration of justice under the Illinois law. His good citizenship,
they think, judged by the standards required for practicing law in Illinois, is not
satisfactorily shown.10 A conscientious belief in nonviolence to the extent that
the believer will not use force to prevent wrong, no matter how aggravated, and
so cannot swear in good faith to support the Illinois Constitution, the Justices
contend, must disqualify such a believer for admission.

10

Petitioner appraises the denial of admission from the viewpoint of a religionist.

He said in his petition:

11

'The so-called 'misconduct' for which petitioner could be reproached for is his
taking the New Testament too seriously. Instead of merely reading or preaching
the Sermon on the Mount, he tries to practice it. The only fault of the petitioner
consists in his attempt to act as a good Christian in accordance with his
interpretation of the Bible, and according to the dictates of his conscience. We
respectfully submit that the profession of law does not shut its gates to persons
who have qualified in all other respects, even when they follow in the footsteps
of that Great Teacher of mankind who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. We
respectfully submit that under out Constitutional guarantees even good
Christians who have met all the requirements for the admission to the bar may
be admitted to practice law.'

12

Thus a court created to administer the laws of Illinois, as it understands them

12

Thus a court created to administer the laws of Illinois, as it understands them

and charged particularly with the protection of justice in the courts of Illinois
through supervision of admissions to the bar found itself faced with the
dilemma of excluding an applicant whom it deemed disqualified for the
responsibilities of the profession of law or of admitting the applicant because of
its deeply rooted tradition in freedom of belief. The responsibility for choice as
to the personnel of its bar rests with Illinois. Only a decision which violated a
federal right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment would authorize our
intervention. It is said that the action of the Supreme Court of Illinois is
contrary to the principles of that portion of the First Amendment which
guarantees the free exercise of religion. Of course, under our Constitutional
system, men could not be excluded from the practice of law, or indeed from
following any other calling, simply because they belong to any of our religious
groups, whether Protestant, Catholic, Quaker or Jewish, assuming it
conceivable that any state of the Union would draw such a religious line. We
cannot say that any such purpose to discriminate motivated the action of the
Illinois Supreme Court.

13

The sincerity of petitioner's beliefs re not questioned. He has been classified as

a conscientious objector under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940,
54 Stat. 885, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix 301 et seq. Without detailing
petitioner's testimony before the Committee or his subsequent statements in the
record, his position may be compendiously stated as one of non-violence.
Petitioner will not serve in the armed forces. While he recognizes a difference
between the military and police forces, he would not act in the latter to coerce
threatened violations. Petitioner would not use force to meet aggressions
against himself or his family, no matter how aggravated or whether or not
carrying a danger of bodily harm to himself or others. He is a believer in
passive resistance. We need to consider only his attitude toward service in the
armed forces.

14

Illinois has constitutional provisions which require service in the militia in time
of war of men of petitioner's age group.11 The return of the Justices alleges that
petitioner has not made any showing that he would serve notwithstanding his
conscientious objections. This allegation is undenied in the record and
unchallenged by brief. We accept the allegation as to unwillingness to serve in
the militia as established. While under Section 5(g) of the Selective Training
and Service Act, supra, conscientious objectors to participation in war in any
form now are permitted to do non-war work of national importance, this is by
grace of Congressional recognition of their beliefs. Hamilton v. Regents, 293
U.S. 245, 261265, 55 S.Ct. 197, 203205, 79 L.Ed. 343, and cases cited.
The Act may be repealed. No similar exemption during war exists under Illinois
law. The Hamilton decision was made in 1934, in time of peace.12 This decision

as to the powers of the state government over military training is applicable to

the power of Illinois to require military service from her citizens.
15

The United States does not admit to citizenship the alien who refuses to pledge
military service. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73
L.Ed. 889; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed.
1302. Even the powerful dissents which emphasized the deep cleavage in this
Court on the issue of admission to citizenship did not challenge the right of
Congress to require military service from every able-bodied man. 279 U.S. at
page 653, 49 S.Ct. at page 451, 73 L.Ed. 889; 283 .S. at page 632, 51 S.Ct. at
page 577, 75 L.Ed. 1302. It is impossible for us to conclude that the insistence
of Illinois that an officer who is charged with the administration of justice must
take an oath to support the Constitution of Illinois and Illinois' interpretation of
that oath to require a willingness to perform military service violates the
principles of religious freedom which the Fourteenth Amendment secures
against state action, when a like interpretation of a similar oath as to the Federal
Constitution bars an alien from national citizenship.13

16

Affirmed.

17

Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.

18

The State of Illinois has denied the petitioner the right to practice his profession
and to earn his living as a lawyer. It has denied him a license on the ground that
his present religious beliefs disqualify him for membership in the legal
profession. The question is, therefore, whether a state which requires a license
as a prerequisite to practicing law can deny an applicant a license solely
because of his deeply-rooted religious convictions. The fact that petitioner
measures up to every other requirement for admission to the Bar set by the
State demonstrates beyond doubt that the only reason for his rejection was his
religious beliefs.

19

The state does not deny that petitioner possesses the following qualifications:

20

He is honest, moral, and intelligent, has had a college and a law school
education. He has been a law professor and fully measures up to the high
standards of legal knowledge Illinois has set as a prerequisite to admission to
practice law in that State. He has never been convicted for, or charged with, a
violation of law. That he would serve his clients faithfully and efficiently if
admitted to practice is not denied. His ideals of what a lawyer should be
indicate that his activities would not reflect discredit upon the bar, that he

would strive to make the legal system a more effective instrument of justice.
Because he thinks that 'Lawsuits do not bring love and brotherliness, they just
create antagonisms,' he would, as a lawyer, exert himself to adjust controversies
out of court, but would vigorously press his client's cause in court if efforts to
adjust failed. Explaining to his examiners some of the reasons why he wanted
to be a lawyer, he told them: 'I think there is a lot of work to be done in the law.
* * * I think the law has a place to see to it that every man has a chance to eat
and a chance to live equally. I think the law has a place where people can go
and get justice done for themselves without paying too much, for the bulk of
people that are too poor.' No one contends that such a vision of the law in
action is either illegal or reprehensible.
21

The petitioner's disqualifying religious beliefs stem chiefly from a study of the
New Testament and a literal acceptance of the teachings of Christ as he
understands them. Those beliefs are these:

22

He is opposed to the use of force for either offensive or defensive purposes.

The taking of human life under any circumstances he believes to be against the
Law of God and contrary to the best interests of man. He would if he could, he
told his exa iners, obey to the letter these precepts of Christ: 'Love your
Enemies; Do good to those that hate you; Even though your enemy strike you
on your right cheek, turn to him your left cheek also.'1 The record of his
evidence before us bears convincing marks of the deep sincerity of his
convictions, and counsel for Illinois with commendable candor does not
question the genuineness of his professions.

23

I cannot believe that a state statute would be consistent with our constitutional
guarantee of freedom of religion if it specifically denied the right to practice
law to all members of one of our great religious groups, Protestant, Catholic, or
Jewish. Yet the Quakers have had a long and honorable part in the growth of
our nation, and an amicus curiae brief filed in their behalf informs us that under
the test applied to this petitioner, not one of them if true to the tenets of their
faith could qualify for the bar in Illinois. And it is obvious that the same
disqualification would exist as to every conscientious objector to the use of
force, even though the Congress of the United States should continue its
practice of absolving them from military service. The conclusion seems to me
inescapable that if Illinois can bar this petitioner from the practice of law it can
bar every person from every public occupation solely because he believes in
non-resistance rather than in force. For a lawyer is no more subject to call for
military duty than a plumber, a highway worker, a Secretary of State, or a
prison chaplain. It may be, as many people think, that Christ's Gospel of love
and submission is not suited to a world in which men still fight and kill one

another. But I am not ready to say that a mere profession of belief in that
Gospel is a sufficient reason to keep otherwise well qualified men out of the
legal profession, or to drive law-abiding lawyers of that belief out of the
profession, which would be the next logical development.
24

Nor am I willing to say that such a belief can be penalized through the
circuitous method of prescribing an oath, and then barring an applicant on the
ground that his present belief might later prompt him to do or refrain from
doing something that might violate that oath. Test oaths, designed to impose
civil disabilities upon men for their beliefs rather than for unlawful conduct,
were an abomination to the founders of this nation. This feeling was made
manifest in Article VI of the Constitution which provides that 'no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.' Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; Ex
parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366.

25

The state's denial of petitioner's application to practice law resolves itself into a
holding that it is lawfully required that all lawyers take an oath to support the
state constitution and that petitioner's religious convictions against the use of
force make it impossible for him to observe that oath. The petitioner denies this
and is willing to take the oath. The particular constitutional provision involved
authorizes the legislature to draft Illinois citizens from 18 to 45 years of age for
militia service. It can be assumed that the State of Illinois has the constitutional
power to draft conscientious objectors for war duty and to punish them for a
refusal to serve as soldiers, powers which this Court held the United States
possesses in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 6 4, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed.
889, and United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed.
1302. But that is not to say that Illinois could constitutionally use the test oath it
did in this case. In the Schwimmer and Macintosh cases aliens were barred
from natuaralization because their then religious beliefs would bar them from
bearing arms to defend the country. Dissents in both cases rested in part on the
permise that religious tests are incompatible with our constitutional guarantee
of freedom of thought and religion. In the Schwimmer case dissent, Mr. Justice
Holmes said that 'if there is any principle of the Constitution that more
imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free
thoughtnot free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the
thought that we hate. I think that we should adhere to that principle with regard
to admission into, as well as to life within his country.' Pages 654, 655, of 279
U.S., page 451 of 49 S.Ct., 73 L.Ed. 889. In the Macintosh case dissent, Mr.
Chief Justice Hughes said, 'To conclude that the general oath of office is to be
interpreted as disregarding the religious scruples of these citizens and as
disqualifying them for office because they could not take the oath with such an

interpretation would, I believe, be generally regarded as contrary not only to the

specific intent of the Congress but as repugnant to the fundamental principle of
representative government.' Page 632, of 283 U.S., page 577 of 51 S.Ct., 75
L.Ed. 1302. I agree with the constitutional philosophy underlying the dissents
of Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Chief Justice Hughes.
26

The Illinois Constitution itself prohibits the draft of conscientious objectors

except in time of war and also excepts from militia duty persons who are
'exempted by the laws of the United States.' It has not drafted men into the
militia since 1864, and if it ever should again, no one can say that it will not, as
has the Congress of the United States, exempt men who honestly entertain the
views that this petitioner does. Thus the probability that Illinois would ever call
the petitioner to serve in a war has little more reality than an imaginary quantity
in mathematics.

27

I cannot agree that a state can lawfully bar from a semi-public position, a wellqualified man of good character solely because he entertains a religious belief
which might prompt him at some time in the future to violate a law which has
not yet been and may never be enacted. Under our Constitution men are
punished for what they do or fail to do and not for what they think and believe.
Freedom to think, to believe, and to worship, has too exalted a position in our
country to be penalized on such an illusory basis. West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 643-646, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187-1189, 87
L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674.

28

I would reverse the decision of the State Supreme Court.

29

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice MURPHY, and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE
concur in this opinion.

Fourteenth Amendment: '* * * nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; * * *.'
First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * *.'
Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639, 63
S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674.

The petition for certiorari was not accompanied by a certified record. Rule

38(1), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 354. It alleged an inability to obtain a

record from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois because the documents
were not in that official's custody. See note 8, infra. No opposing brief was
filed. After the expiration of the time for opposing briefs, rule 38(3), a rule
issued 'returnable within 30 days, requiring the Supreme Court of Illinois to
show cause why the record in this proceeding should not be certified to this
Court and also why the petition for writ of certiorari herein should not be
granted.' Journal, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1944, p.
6. A return was duly made by the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court of Illinois which stated the position of the justices on the
certification of the supposed and alleged record and their opposition to the
granting of the certiorari. On consideration our writ of certiorari issued,
directed to the Honorable, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois,
commanding that 'the record and/or papers and proceedings' be sent to this
Court for review. Journal, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term,
1944, p. 93. The papers comprising the proceedings before the Supreme Court
of Illinois were certified to us by the Clerk of that court.
3

In part it reads:
'I think the record establishes that you are a conscientious objector,also that
your philosophical beliefs go further. You eschew the use of force regardless of
circumstances but the law which you profe to embrace and which you teach
and would practice is not an abstraction observed through mutual respect. It is
real. It is the result of experience of man in an imperfect world, necessary we
believe to restrain the strong and protect the weak. It recognizes the right even
of the individual to use force under certain circumstances and commands the
use of force to obtain its observance.
'I do not argue against your religious beliefs or your philosophy of nonviolence.
My point is merely that your position seems inconsistent with the obligation of
an attorney at law.'

'This Court has an elaborate petition filed by Francis Heisler, an attorney of 77

West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois, on behalf of Clyde Wilson
Summers.
'The substance of the petition is that the Board should overrule the action of the
Committee on Character and Fitness, in which the Committee refused to give
him a certificate because he is a conscientious objector, and for that reason
refused to register or participate in the present national emergency.
'I am directed to advise you that the Court is of the opinion that the report of the
Committee on Character and Fitness should be sustained.

'Yours very truly, (Signed)

June C. Smith, Chief Justice.'
5

Other courts reason to the contrary result. Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 15, 15
L.Ed. 565; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366; Randall v. Brigham, 7
Wall. 523, 535, 19 L.Ed. 285; In the Matter of the Application of Henry W.
Cooper, 22 N.Y. 67; Ex parte Cashin, 128 Miss. 224, 232, 90 So. 850.

Illinois considers that the power and jurisdiction of its Supreme Court with
respect to the admission of attorneys are inherent in the judiciary under the
constitution of the state, which provides, Article III, for the traditional
distribution of the powers of government. Smith Hurd Illinois Anno. Statutes,
Constitution, p. 394; In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 82, 54 .E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519.
Attorneys are officers of the court, answerable to it for their conduct. People v.
Peoples Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 470, 176 N.E. 901. The act of
admission is an exercise of judicial power, 344 Ill. 470, 176 N.E. 901, a
judgment, In re Day, 181 Ill. at page 97, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519, even
though it is not considered a judicial proceeding. In the exercise of its judicial
power over the bar, the Supreme Court of Illinois has adopted rules for
admission to practice before the courts of that state which permit the admission
by the Supreme Court after satisfactory examination by the Board of Law
Examiners which includes a certification by a Committee on Character and
Fitness as to the applicant's character and moral fitness. Illinois Revised
Statutes 1943, c. 110, 259.58.

Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1: 'The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to
all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party;to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different
States;between citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.'

The act of adjudging to which we have referred is contained in a letter

addressed to petitioner, which reads as follows:
'Your petition to be admitted to the bar, notwithstanding the unfavorable report
of the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Third Appellate Court
District, has received the consideration of the Court.

'I am directed to advise you that the Court is of the opinion that the report of the
Committee on Character and Fitness should be sustained.
'Yours very truly (Signed) June C.
Smith, Chief Justice.'
The letter was certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois under its
seal as 'filed in this office _____ in a certain cause entitled in this Court. Non
Record No. 462. In Re Clyde Wilson Summers.'
Later another letter was written in regard to the admission which reads as
follows:
'March 22, 1944.
'Mr. Francis Heisler, Attorney at Law, 77 West Washington Street,
'Suite 1324, Chicago, 2, Illinois.
'In re: Clyde Wilson Summers.
'Dear Sir:
'Your petition on behalf of Clyde Wilson Summers to reconsider the prior
action of the Court sustaining the report of the Committee on Character and
Fitness for the Third Appellate Court District, has had the consideration of the
Court.
'I am directed to advise you that the Court declines to further consider its
former action in this matter.
'Yours very truly,
June C. Smith, Chief Justice.'
By stipulation of petitioner and the Justices, the Clerk prepared a supplemental
record in this cause which includes the following: (1) a transcript of the
proceedings before the Character Committee; (2) the letter of March 22, 1944;
(3) a certificate that the transcript is the original and the letter a document of
the Supreme Court of Illinois.
9

In Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442, this Court took
cognizance of a writ of error to an order of the Supreme Court of Illinois which
denied a motion of Mrs. Bradwell for admission to the bar of Illinois. The

proceeding was entitled by the Supreme Court of Illinois, 'In the matter of the
application of Mrs. Myra Bradwell for a license to practice as an attorney-atlaw.' There was an opinion. A writ of error under the Illinois title was issued to
bring up the case. The objection to Mrs. Bradwell's admission was on the
ground of her sex. As no question was raised as to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article III of the Constitution, the case is of little, if any, value as a
precedent on that point. United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 245 U.S. 166, 170,
38 S.Ct. 94, 96, 62 L.Ed. 223; United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172, 2
L.Ed. 397.
10

Section IX(2) of the Rules for Admission to the Bar reads as follows: 'Before
admission to the Bar, each applicant shall be passed upon by the Committee in
his district as to his character and moral fitness. He shall furnish the Committee
with an affidavit in such form as the Board of Law Examiners shall prescribe
concerning his history and environments, together with the affidavits of at least
three reputable persons personally acquainted with him residing in the county
in which the applicant resides, each testifying that the applicant is known to the
affiant to be of good moral character and general fitness to practice law, setting
forth in detail the facts upon which such knowledge is based. Each applicant
shall appear before the Committee of his district or some member thereof and
shall furnish the Committee such evidence of his moral character and good
citizenship as in the opinion of the Committee would justify his admission to
the Bar.' Ill.Rev.Stat. 1943, c. 110, 259.58.

11

'The militia of the state of Illinois shall consist of all able-bodied made persons
resident in the state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such
persons as now are, or hereafter may be, exempted by the laws of the United
States, or of this state.' (Constitution of Illinois, Art. XII, Sec. 1, Ill. Rev. Stat.
1943.)
'No person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be
compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person shall pay
an equivalent for such exemption.' (Constitution of Illinois, Art. XII, Sec. 6, Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1943.)

12

California imposed instruction in military tactics on male students in the

University of California. Some students sought exemption from this training on
the ground that such training was inconsistent with their religious beliefs. This
Court denied them any such exemption based on the due process clause of the
federal Constitution. The opinion states, at pages 262, 263 of 293 U.S., at page
204 of 55 S.Ct., 79 L.Ed. 343:
'Government, federal and state, each in its own sphere owes a duty to the people

within its jurisdiction to preserve itself in adequate strength to maintain peace

and order and to assure the just enforcement of law. And every citizen owes the
reciprocal duty, according to his capacity to support and defend government
against all enemies. Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v. United States), supra,
page 378 of 245 U.S., 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C, 361,
Ann.Cas.1918B, 856; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166, 22 L.Ed. 627.'
13

United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625, 626, 51 S.Ct. 570, 575, 75
L.Ed. 1302.
'If the attitude of this claimant, as shown by his statements and the inferences
properly to be deduced from them, be held immaterial to the question of his
fitness for admission to citizenship, where shall the line be drawn? Upon what
ground of distinction may we hereafter reject another applicant who shall
express his willingness to respect any particular principle of the Constitution or
obey any future statute only upon the condition that he shall entertain the
opinion that it is morally justified? The applicant's attitude, in effect, is a
refusal to take the oath of allegiance except in an altered form. The
qualifications upon which he insists, it is true, are made by parol and not by
way of written amendment to the oath; but the substance is the same.'

The quotations are the petitioner's paraphrase of the King James translation of
Verses 38, 39 and 44 of St. Matthew, Chapter 5, which read as follows:
'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. * * *
'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you; * * *.'