Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond

Appellants challenge, primarily on First Amendment vagueness and overbreadth grounds, the system for screening applicants for admission to the New York Bar. To carry out the statutory requirement that the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court "be satisfied that such person possesses the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counsellor-at-law," Committees on Character and Fitness receive affidavits from two persons (one of whom must be a practicing attorney) acquainted with the applicant, and a questionnaire completed by the applicant. The Committees also conduct personal interviews with each applicant. As the final step before admission to the Bar, the applicant must take an oath that he will support the United States and New York Constitutions. Appellants attack the procedure, not because any applicant has ever been unjustifiably denied permission to practice law in New York, but on the basis that it works a "chilling effect" upon the exercise of free speech and association of law students. The three-judge District Court found certain items on the questionnaire so vague, overbroad, and intrusive on applicants' privacy as to be of doubtful constitutional validity, but upheld the statute and rules as valid on their face, and with the exceptions noted, sustained the validity of the procedure.

Held:


 * 1. The "character and general fitness requirement for admission to the New York Bar is not violative of the Constitution. Pp. 159-160.


 * (a) The requirement has been construed by appellees to encompass no more than "dishonorable conduct relevant to the legal profession." P. 159.


 * (b) The current third-part affidavits, setting forth the nature and extent of affiants' acquaintance with the applicant, do not infringe upon the applicant's right to privacy. P. 160.


 * 2. New York's Rule that an applicant furnish proof that he "believes in the form of government of the United States and is loyal to such government," is not constitutionally invalid in light of appellees' construction that the Rule places no burden of proof on the applicant, that the "form of government" and the "government" refer solely to the Constitution, and that "belief" and "loyalty" mean no more than willingness to take the constitutional oath and ability to do so in good faith. Pp. 161-164.


 * 3. The challenged items on the modified questionnaire are not constitutionally invalid, as one is precisely tailored to conform to this Court's decisions on organizational membership and association, and the other is merely supportive of appellees' task of ascertaining the applicant's good faith in taking the constitutional oath. Pp. 164-166.


 * 4. New York's carefully administered screening system does not necessarily result in chilling the exercise of constitutional freedoms, and whether a different policy might be wiser rests with that State's policy-making bodies. P. 167.

299 F. Supp. 117, affirmed.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ, joined. HARLAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, ante, p. 34. BLACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, J., joined, post, p. 174. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 185.

Norman Dorsen argued the cause for appellants. On the brief for appellants Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc., et al. were Alan H. Levine, Jeremiah S. Gutman, Melvin L. Wulf, and Sanford Jay Rosen. On the brief for appellants Wexler et al. were Leonard B. Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, and David Rosenberg.

David W. Peck argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael M. Maney.