From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Hale v. Committee on Character and Fitness for the State of Illinois
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
335 F.3d 678 (2003)
Matthew Hale (defendant) applied to practice law in Illinois. Hale publicly advocated for white supremacy and for abolishing equal-protection laws. Hale had a few other blemishes on the character-and-fitness portion of his bar application, such as having been arrested several times, but Hale had never been convicted and had not committed any concrete bad actions that would justify disbarment if he were already admitted. The Committee on Character and Fitness for the State of Illinois (the committee) (plaintiff) found that Hale’s active commitment to racism and bigotry was a gross deficiency in Hale’s moral character that made him unfit to take on a lawyer’s responsibility to uphold the rule of law for everyone. Further, the committee found that Hale was not honest and open during the hearing on his bar admission and that Hale would most likely violate the rules of professional conduct at some point. Because it had found that Hale did not have the moral character and fitness to practice law, the committee denied Hale’s bar application. Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review that denial, claiming that it was unconstitutional to deny his bar application based solely on his personal viewpoints and the committee’s beliefs about possible future actions. However, without any explanation, the supreme court denied Hale’s request to review the issues. Hale then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, but that petition was also denied without explanation. Arguing that the constitutional issues had not been fully examined, Hale then filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming that the denial of his bar application violated his constitutional rights. The federal district court found that the state courts had already adjudicated the issue, preventing the district court from reviewing that same issue, and dismissed the lawsuit. Hale appealed that dismissal to the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.