## Facts

- Rosika Schwimmer, a Hungarian-born pacifist and lecturer, immigrated to the United States in 1921 and sought naturalization in 1926.
- On a naturalization form asking whether she would take up arms if necessary to defend the country, she answered: “I would not take up arms personally.”
- At her hearing, Schwimmer testified she could “whole-heartedly take the oath of allegiance,” did not wish to remain subject to Hungary, and described herself as an “uncompromising pacifist” with a non-nationalistic, “cosmic” sense of human belonging.
- She asserted she could support and defend the Constitution through non-military means (e.g., civic activity, writing, lecturing, and opposing anti-American propaganda), while maintaining her personal refusal to bear arms.
- The district court denied her petition, finding she could not take the oath without mental reservation and was not “attached to the principles of the Constitution” nor “well disposed to the good order and happiness” of the United States.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed and directed that naturalization be granted; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant’s stated refusal, on pacifist grounds, to personally bear arms in defense of the United States supports a finding that the applicant is not “attached to the principles of the Constitution” and not “well disposed to the good order and happiness” of the United States under the naturalization statute.
2. Whether a court may deny naturalization when reasonable doubt remains as to an applicant’s satisfaction of statutory qualifications.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and reinstated the district court’s denial of naturalization.
- The Court held that Schwimmer’s pacifism and explicit refusal to agree to take up arms could support the conclusion that she lacked the attachment and disposition required for citizenship.
- The Court emphasized that naturalization is a privilege and that the applicant bears the burden to prove statutory eligibility; unresolved reasonable doubt is resolved against the applicant.
- Justice Holmes, joined by Justice Brandeis, dissented, arguing that a free society should tolerate dissenting political views and that pacifist belief should not disqualify an otherwise qualified applicant.

## Legal Principles

- Naturalization is not a right; statutes governing admission to citizenship are construed to protect the government, and the applicant bears the burden of proving all statutory qualifications by satisfactory evidence.
- If, after fair consideration of the evidence, reasonable doubt remains on an essential fact related to eligibility, the government receives the benefit of the doubt and the petition may be denied.
- Under the governing statute, an applicant must satisfy the court that the applicant is of good moral character, “attached to the principles of the Constitution,” and “well disposed to the good order and happiness” of the United States, and must swear to support and defend the Constitution and laws.
- The majority treated willingness to defend the government by force of arms when necessary as a fundamental duty of citizenship, making an applicant’s beliefs and statements about military defense relevant to “attachment” and “disposition” in naturalization proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court affirmed the denial of citizenship on the ground that an applicant’s refusal, based on pacifist conviction, to commit to bearing arms could justify a finding that the applicant failed to prove the statutory requirement of attachment to constitutional principles and favorable disposition toward the United States.


United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)