UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a foreign-born applicant who holds pacifist beliefs and refuses to take up arms in defense of the United States can be denied U.S. citizenship for failing to meet the statutory requirement of being "attached to the principles of the Constitution" under the Naturalization Act of 1906.

Action

Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

The applicant was a woman — 49 years of age, a linguist, lecturer, and writer, well educated and accustomed to discuss governments and civic affairs. She testified that she would not take up arms in defense of the country; that she was willing to be treated as the government dealt with conscientious objectors who refused to take up arms in the recent war, and that she was an uncompromising pacifist with no sense of nationalism, but only a "cosmic" sense of belonging to the human family.

Taken as a whole, her testimony showed that her objection to military service rested upon reasons other than mere inability, because of her age and sex, personally to bear arms; it was vague and uncertain in its description of her attitude towards the principles of the Constitution, and failed to sustain the burden resting upon her to show what she meant, and that her pacifism and lack of nationalistic sense did not oppose the principle making it a duty of citizenship by force of arms, when necessary, to defend the country against its enemies, and that her opinions and beliefs would not impair the true faith and allegiance required by the Naturalization Act.

Importance of Case

Holmes' dissent in this case was the last "free speech" opinion he wrote. This case was argued by Olive H. Rabe, the first woman to argue a freedom of conscience case in the Supreme Court. Her client in the Court was also a woman, Rosika Schwimmer.