In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.
Background
Clyde Summers entered the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign at the age of 16, earning a Bachelor of Science in Accounting in 1939 and a Juris Doctor (cum laude) in 1942. While an undergraduate and law student, Summers became active in the Methodist Student Movement and a believer in the social gospel.
The United States entered World War II on December 8, 1941. Summers, opposed to the use of force, declared himself a conscientious objector. In 1942, Summers sought admission to the Illinois State Bar Association, a prerequisite to the practice of law in the state of Illinois. The bar association admitted he was of high moral character and exhibited excellent knowledge of the law, but in January 1943 denied him admission due to his conscientious objector status. Article 12 of the Illinois constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. However, Illinois had not drafted citizens into its state militia since 1864, Article 12 prohibited the drafting of conscientious objectors into the militia during peacetime, and the article permitted conscientious objectors to engage in work of significant national importance during war in lieu of military service. Nonetheless, Summers could not uphold the relevant constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, the bar association said.
With representation by the American Civil Liberties Union, Summers sued, alleging that the bar association's actions had infringed his First and Fourteenth amendment rights. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that 1) The courts had no jurisdiction over the issue, and thus no "case or controversy" existed under Article Three of the Constitution; and 2) The bar association had not discriminated against Summers on the basis of his religion but rather on the basis of his ability to uphold the military service section of the Illinois state constitution.
Summers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and which granted certiorari.
Opinion of the Court
Majority
Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed wrote the decision for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Stone and Associate Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton.
Reed first reviewed the case proceedings. Regarding the "case or controversy" aspect of the issue, Reed concluded that the admission of a lawyer to the bar was "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." However, under Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824), because the judicial power is invoked, this allows a case to arise. But was there a controversy? For a controversy to exist, Reed said, it must follow the rule laid down in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), which held that there must be actual disagreement and merely a hypothetical or potential disagreement. The record in In re Summers was incomplete and the response for petition of certiorari from the Illinois Supreme Court was oddly formed, leaving the issue of a controversy muddied. But the majority concluded that since the bar association committee had formed at the request of the Illinois Supreme Court and that court had acted on Summers' petition for relief, a true controversy existed. Without discussion, Reed furthermore asserted that denial of the right to practice law is a controversy, and a denial of that right by a state court triggers federal jurisdiction under Article Three of the U.S. Constitution.