## Facts

- Congress enacted an “ironclad oath” (1862) requiring sworn denial of past support for armed hostility against the United States.
- Congress extended that oath to attorneys practicing in federal courts (1865), barring admission or continued appearance without taking the oath.
- Augustus Hill Garland, an Arkansas lawyer and former Confederate senator, could not truthfully take the oath because of prior Confederate service.
- Garland received a full presidential pardon for offenses connected to the rebellion and sought permission to practice before the Supreme Court without taking the oath.
- Garland petitioned the Supreme Court ex parte, challenging the oath statute as unconstitutional and inconsistent with the President’s pardon power.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1865 oath requirement for attorneys functioned as a bill of attainder (bill of pains and penalties) by imposing a legislative punishment on an identifiable class.
2. Whether the statute operated as an ex post facto law by adding punishment for past conduct.
3. Whether Congress could impose a professional disability based on conduct that had been fully pardoned by the President.
4. Whether attorneys in federal courts are “officers of the United States” subject to congressional qualification requirements, or officers of the courts subject primarily to judicial control.

## Decision

- The Court held the 1865 statute unconstitutional as applied to attorneys and granted Garland relief.
- The oath requirement operated as a bill of pains and penalties (and thus a bill of attainder) because it imposed exclusion from a profession based on specified past conduct.
- The statute also violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by imposing punishment for prior acts and, in some instances, adding a new punishment to conduct already punishable.
- A full presidential pardon removes legal punishment and disability for the pardoned offense; Congress could not impose an additional legislative disability for the same conduct.
- Attorneys were treated as officers of the courts; admission and disbarment are judicial acts that Congress could not retroactively override through punitive qualification rules.

## Legal Principles

- Legislation that identifies a class by past conduct and imposes professional exclusion or comparable civil disability can constitute a prohibited bill of attainder (including bills of pains and penalties).
- A law is ex post facto if it imposes punishment for acts not punishable when committed or adds a new punishment to prior conduct.
- A full presidential pardon removes punishment and legal disability for the pardoned offense; Congress may not reimpose punishment or its equivalent through legislation.
- Attorneys in federal courts are officers of the court; regulating admission and removal is primarily a judicial function, limiting Congress’s ability to impose retroactive, punitive disqualifications.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the federal loyalty-oath requirement for attorneys because it imposed retroactive punishment amounting to a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law, and because it conflicted with the legal effect of a full presidential pardon and the judiciary’s authority over the bar.


Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1867)