Citations 279 U.S. 644 (more) Date decided 1929 | Dissent Sanford | |
Full case name United States v. Rosika Schwimmer Majority Butler, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Stone Dissent Holmes, joined by Brandeis Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Whitney v California, Abrams v United States, Palko v Connecticut, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, New York Times Co v United | ||
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.
Contents
Details
Rosika Schwimmer was a pacifist who would not take the oath of allegiance to become a naturalized citizen. She was born in Hungary and while in the United States delivering a lecture she decided that she wanted to become a US citizen. When asked if she would be willing to "take up arms in defense of her country" she responded in the negative. She stated that she believed in the democratic ideal, but she asserted that she was an uncompromising pacifist. “My cosmic consciousness of belonging to the human family is shared by all those who believe that all human beings are the children of God.”
Court decision
The Court held in a 6–3 decision that citizenship should be denied.
Significance
The Court placed great emphasis on the interest of the state to foster feelings of nationalism, even though the nationalist beliefs of the country may have some conflict with religious beliefs. The case is best known, however, for Justice Holmes's phrase concerning "freedom for the thought that we hate," which has become a favorite statement of the underlying principles of free speech embodied in the First Amendment.