Introduction
It is important to note that the Supreme Court was considering a case that dealt with the controversial issue of whether Maryland’s requirement violated the First Amendment’s established clause. The requirement was that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God, which is one of the statements that a candidate is obligated to make. Accordingly, during the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court, it was found that such a requirement violates the civil rights of people (Blankholm, 2018). This is because, in this case, preference is given to those people who believe in God, and others are discriminated against. Moreover, the Supreme Court unanimously approved that the position of the State of Maryland promotes discrimination against people on religious grounds.
Case Outline
- Title: Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) (Blankholm, 2018).
- Facts of the case: Roy Torcaso attempted to become a notary public in Maryland but was denied. This was because he was required to declare his belief in God, and the candidate was an atheist (Blankholm, 2018). Accordingly, a controversial issue arose when the Maryland Constitution contradicted the human right to religion.
- History of the case: The candidate filed a lawsuit in the Maryland Circuit Court alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was dismissed, and Torcaso appealed to the Maryland State Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the previous decision (Blankholm, 2018). Therefore, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Legal questions: Does state law violate a right guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution?
- Decision or holdings: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found that this requirement restricts his religious beliefs (Greenberg et al., 2020). The reason is that Maryland favors one category of people and neglects the needs of others on the basis of religion.
- Verdict and opinion (judgement): Judge Hugo L. Black delivered a unanimous opinion (De Maio, 2018). Judge Felix Frankfurter and Judge John M. Harlan concurred in the outcome.
Conclusion
The judges found that the plaintiff’s religious rights should not be violated. Basically, US citizens received a judicial confirmation of the supremacy of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This was the right decision, because it eliminated discriminatory conditions for obtaining a position.
References
Blankholm, J. (2018). Secularism and secular people. Public Culture, 30(2), 245-268.
De Maio, G. (2018). The republican schoolmaster and the problem of religion in America. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 30(1), 169-194.
Greenberg, E.S. et al. (2020). The struggle for democracy.Pearson.