Bernal v. Fainter: Difference between revisions

Bernal v. Fainter
Bernal v. Fainter
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 1984; Decided May 30, 1984
Full case name	Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.
Citations	467 U.S. 216 (more) 104 S. Ct. 2312; 81 L. Ed. 2d 175; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 93; 52 U.S.L.W. 4669
Case history
Prior	710 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1983)
Holding
	The Texas statute requiring that a notary public be a United States citizen violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist; John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor
Dissent	Rehnquist
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:50, 13 September 2023

Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.^[1]

Background[edit]

A native of Mexico applied to be a notary public in Texas.^[2] Citing a Texas law that required notaries public to be citizens of the United States, Texas' Secretary of State denied the application.^[3] After losing an administrative appeal, the applicant filed a lawsuit in federal court.^[4] The trial court ruled in favor of the applicant and found that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Texas' citizenship requirement did not pass either strict scrutiny or rational basis review.^[5] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the rational basis test was the proper standard of review and that under this standard, the citizenship requirement "bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in the proper and orderly handling of a countless variety of legal documents of importance to the state."^[6]

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Citing Graham v. Richardson,^[7] the Supreme Court recognized that legal aliens are a suspect class, and therefore any law applying to legal aliens as a class is subject to strict scrutiny.^[8] The Court also recognized a "political function" exception that subjects alienage classification laws to a lower standard of review for "positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-governance."^[9] However, the Court held that since the requirements of being a notary are essentially ministerial (that is, without judgment or discretion, either the person fits the statutory requirement to have a document authenticated or they do not), and the only real requirement of a notary was to follow the law, being a notary does not have any special character of citizenship that would require one to necessarily be a citizen.^[10] The Court noted that this is unlike the role played by other individuals in who work in judicial systems, such as judges or police officer, where a locality may require police officers to be citizens because they act on behalf of the state and have considerable discretion in how the law is enforced.^[11] Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law that required a notary to be a citizen.^[12] The Court also noted in dictum that notary commissions are issued by the Texas Secretary of State, who is not required to be a citizen despite holding the "highest appointive position" in Texas.^[13]

Dissenting opinion[edit]

Justice William Rehnquist wrote a one-sentence dissenting opinion stating: "I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Sugarman v. Dougall."^[14] In Sugarman, Justice Rehnquist argued that alienage is not a suspect classification.^[15]

References[edit]

^ Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 228 (1984).
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218 (noting that the application was denied under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 5949(2) (Vernon Supp.1984)).
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218 (citing Vargas v. Strake, C.A. No. B-79-147 (SD Tex., Oct. 9, 1981) (mem.)).
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218-19.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 219 (citing Vargas v. Strake, 710 F.2d 190, 195 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
^ Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 419-22.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 422-27.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 425-27.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 426-27.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 428.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 422.
^ Bernal, 467 U.S. at 428 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
^ Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 649 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

External links[edit]

Text of Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

[1] Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 228 (1984).

[2] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218.

[3] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218 (noting that the application was denied under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 5949(2) (Vernon Supp.1984)).

[4] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218 (citing Vargas v. Strake, C.A. No. B-79-147 (SD Tex., Oct. 9, 1981) (mem.)).

[5] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 218-19.

[6] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 219 (citing Vargas v. Strake, 710 F.2d 190, 195 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

[7] Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).

[8] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 419-22.

[9] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 422-27.

[10] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 425-27.

[11] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 426-27.

[12] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 428.

[13] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 422.

[14] Bernal, 467 U.S. at 428 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

[15] Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 649 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
 {{Infobox SCOTUS case
   |Litigants=Bernal v. Fainter
@@ Line 8: / Line 9: @@
   |USVol=467
   |USPage=216
-  |Citation=104 S. Ct. 2312; 81 L. Ed. 2d 175; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 93; 52 U.S.L.W. 4669
+  |ParallelCitations=104 S. Ct. 2312; 81 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 175; 1984 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 93; 52 U.S.L.W. 4669
-  |Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
+  |Prior=710 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/710/190/41152/ 190] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|5th Cir.]] 1983)
   |Subsequent=
-  |Holding=Texas statute (Article 5949(2)) requiring that a notary public be a United States citizen violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Pp. 219-228.
+  |Holding=The Texas statute requiring that a notary public be a United States citizen violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-  |SCOTUS=1981-1986
   |Majority=Marshall
   |JoinMajority=Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor
   |Dissent=Rehnquist
   |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]
+}}{{Chicano and Mexican American topics sidebar|state=collapsed}}'''''Bernal v. Fainter''''', 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] prohibited the state of [[Texas]] from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a [[notary public]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Bernal v. Fainter|volume=467|page=216|pin=228|year=1984}}.</ref>
-}}
-'''''Bernal v. Fainter''''', 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] prohibited the state of [[Texas]] from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a [[notary public]].
+==Background==
-The Supreme Court decided that since the requirements of being a notary are essentially ministerial (that is, without judgement or discretion, either the person fits the statutory requirement to have a document authenticated or they do not), and the only real requirement of a notary was to follow the law, being a notary does not have any special character of citizenship that would require one to necessarily be a [[citizen]].  This is unlike, say, being a [[police officer]], where a locality may require police officers to be citizens because they act on behalf of the state and have considerable discretion in how the law is enforced.
+A native of Mexico applied to be a notary public in Texas.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 218.</ref> Citing a Texas law that required notaries public to be citizens of the United States, Texas' Secretary of State denied the application.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 218 (noting that the application was denied under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 5949(2) (Vernon Supp.1984)).</ref> After losing an administrative appeal, the applicant filed a lawsuit in federal court.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 218 (citing ''Vargas v. Strake'', C.A. No. B-79-147 (SD Tex., Oct. 9, 1981) (mem.)).</ref> The trial court ruled in favor of the applicant and found that under the Equal Protection Clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], Texas' citizenship requirement did not pass either [[strict scrutiny]] or [[rational basis review]].<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 218-19.</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] reversed, holding that the rational basis test was the proper standard of review and that under this standard, the citizenship requirement "bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in the proper and orderly handling of a countless variety of legal documents of importance to the state."<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 219 (citing ''Vargas v. Strake'', 710 F.2d 190, 195 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).</ref>
+==Opinion of the Court==
-The Supreme Court struck down the Texas law that required a notary to be a citizen.  The court also noted that notary commissions are issued by the [[Texas Secretary of State]], who, ironically enough, is not required to be a citizen.
+Citing ''[[Graham v. Richardson]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=Graham v. Richardson|volume=403|page=365|pin=|year=1971}}.</ref> the Supreme Court recognized that legal aliens are a [[Suspect classification|suspect class]], and therefore any law applying to legal aliens as a class is subject to strict scrutiny.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 419-22.</ref> The Court also recognized a "political function" exception that subjects alienage classification laws to a lower standard of review for "positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-governance."<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 422-27.</ref> However, the Court held that since the requirements of being a notary are essentially ministerial (that is, without judgment or discretion, either the person fits the statutory requirement to have a document authenticated or they do not), and the only real requirement of a notary was to follow the law, being a notary does not have any special character of citizenship that would require one to necessarily be a [[citizen]].<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 425-27.</ref> The Court noted that this is unlike the role played by other individuals in who work in judicial systems, such as judges or [[police officer]], where a locality may require police officers to be citizens because they act on behalf of the state and have considerable discretion in how the law is enforced.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 426-27.</ref> Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law that required a notary to be a citizen.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 428.</ref> The Court also noted in ''[[dictum]]'' that notary commissions are issued by the [[Texas Secretary of State]], who is not required to be a citizen despite holding the "highest appointive position" in Texas.<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 422.</ref>
+===Dissenting opinion===
+Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote a one-sentence dissenting opinion stating: "I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in ''[[Sugarman v. Dougall]]''."<ref>''Bernal'', 467 U.S. at 428 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).</ref> In ''Sugarman'', Justice Rehnquist argued that alienage is not a suspect classification.<ref>{{ussc|name=Sugarman v. Dougall|volume=413|page=634|pin=649|year=1973}} (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).</ref>
 ==See also==
-*[[Torcaso v. Watkins]] (religious test to be a notary found unconstitutional)
+*''[[Torcaso v. Watkins]]'' (1961): religious test to be a notary found unconstitutional
 *[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 467]]
+==References==
+{{Reflist|30em}}
 ==External links==
+* {{caselaw source
-* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=467&page=216  Findlaw.Com Text of decision]
+ | case = ''Bernal v. Fainter,'' {{ussc|467|216|1984|el=no}}
+ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/467/216.html
+ | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3248193097323158760
+ | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/216/
+ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467216/usrep467216.pdf
+ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-630
+ }}
+{{US14thAmendment}}
+[[Category:1984 in United States case law]]
 [[Category:United States equal protection case law]]
 [[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
-[[Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law]]
+[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
-[[Category:1984 in United States case law]]
-[[Category:Notaries]]
-{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}