## Facts

- New Mexico required bar applicants to prove “good moral character” and authorized the Board of Bar Examiners to deny permission to sit for the bar exam if not satisfied.
- Rudolph Schware applied in 1953 to take the February 1954 bar examination; it was conceded he was otherwise qualified.
- The Board denied permission after a hearing, citing (1) Schware’s use of aliases (1933–1937), (2) multiple pre-1940 arrests that resulted in no convictions, and (3) prior Communist Party membership (1932–1940).
- Schware presented extensive evidence of good character, including testimony from his rabbi, law school faculty, and peers, as well as honorable military service and successful completion of law school.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court sustained the Board’s denial, effectively blocking Schware from qualifying for admission to the bar.

## Issues

1. Whether New Mexico violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying Schware the opportunity to take the bar examination based on old alias use, arrests without convictions, and former Communist Party membership.
2. Whether those grounds bore a rational connection to Schware’s present fitness or capacity to practice law.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, on this record, New Mexico deprived Schware of due process by denying him the opportunity to qualify for the practice of law.
- The Court concluded the cited factors—individually and together—did not provide a reasonable basis to find lack of present good moral character.

## Legal Principles

- A state may set high standards for admission to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection to the applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice law.
- A state may not exclude a person from an occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause.
- State officials may not deny admission where there is no basis for finding the applicant fails to meet legitimate standards or where the action is arbitrary or invidiously discriminatory.
- Use of aliases long before application, for non-fraudulent purposes, does not reasonably support a present inference of bad moral character.
- Arrests without convictions are weak evidence of character and, without more, do not support a finding of present bad moral character.
- Past political association, without substantial evidence of specific unlawful or otherwise disqualifying conduct, does not justify an inference of current unfitness to practice law.

## Conclusion

The Court held that due process prevents a state from blocking bar-exam access based on remote alias use, non-conviction arrests, and past political membership when those facts lack a rational connection to present fitness and are outweighed by substantial evidence of current good character.


Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs of N.M., 353 U.S. 232 (1957)