Facts of the Case
Roy R. Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland, but he could not receive his commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God as the Maryland Constitution required. He sued for his commission in the Maryland Circuit Court on the grounds that the requirement violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The circuit court rejected his claims and the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland affirmed.
Questions
Does a state requirement that a candidate for public office profess a belief in God in order to be eligible violate the First Amendment protection of the freedom of religion?
Conclusions
-
Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the unanimous opinion. The Court held that such a requirement places the state of Maryland firmly on the side of those people who believe in God and are willing to state their belief. With this requirement, Maryland effectively aids religions that profess a belief in God at the expense of any other form of belief or disbelief. The First Amendment expressly prohibits a state from taking this position. Although the candidate has the option of not pursuing public office rather than declaring a belief in God, the test is an unconstitutional encroachment on the freedom of religion. Justice Felix Frankfurter and Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the result.
The President's Immigration Travel Ban: What Trump v. Hawaii Has to Say About Stating a Claim Under the Establishment Clause
It is little appreciated that the United States Supreme Court’s decision today in Trump v. Hawaii,...
Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Engage Volume 13, Issue 3 October 2012
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v....