Cummings v. Missouri
Cummings v. Missouri is a landmark Supreme Court case that examined the constitutionality of loyalty oaths imposed on individuals in certain professions following the Civil War. The case arose from a Missouri law that required employees to affirm they had not supported the Confederacy, thereby retroactively penalizing those who could not comply. Justice Stephen J. Field, who authored the opinion, argued that such loyalty oaths constituted ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, as they imposed punitive measures without trial and targeted specific individuals. The court's decision was closely contested, with a 5-4 vote, and Justice Samuel F. Miller dissenting, asserting that the oaths did not amount to punishment. The ruling established a significant precedent in American law, concerning the protection against retroactive legislation that punishes individuals for past actions that were legal at the time. This decision has continued relevance in discussions about the limits of legislative power and individual rights, influencing future cases such as United States v. Brown in 1965, which addressed similar issues of exclusion based on political beliefs. Cummings v. Missouri remains a critical reference point in understanding the balance between state interests and constitutional protections.
Cummings v. Missouri
Date: March 20, 1867
Citation: 71 U.S. 277
Issue: Loyalty oaths
Significance: The Supreme Court overturned statutes requiring loyalty oaths, viewing them as unconstitutional ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
Justice Stephen J. Field wrote the opinions for both Cummings and its companion case, Ex parte Garland, which were decided by 5-4 votes with Justice Samuel F. Miller dissenting. Cummings involved a Missouri law that retroactively imposed loyalty oaths requiring people in various jobs to swear that they had not aided or sympathized with the southern cause during the Civil War. Garland dealt with a federal law requiring attorneys practicing in federal court to swear that they had not supported the Confederacy.
Field noted that, although these statutes did not impose fines or imprisonment, they were punitive because they banned those who could not take oaths honestly from practicing their professions. Sections 9 and 10 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution ban bills of attainder and ex post facto laws at the state and federal level. Field found the statutes in Cummings and Garland to be ex post facto retroactive legislation (laws that criminalized acts considered legal when committed) and bills of attainder because they imposed punishment without trial to a designated group of individuals. Miller, in dissent, argued that the statutes were not imposing punishment and therefore could not be either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. This decision, never repudiated by the Supreme Court, was used in United States v. Brown (1965) to void a federal law that banned former communists from serving as labor union officials.