View source for Bernal v. Fainter

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Bernal v. Fainter
  |ArgueDate=March 28
  |ArgueYear=1984
  |DecideDate=May 30
  |DecideYear=1984
  |FullName=Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.
  |USVol=467
  |USPage=216
  |ParallelCitations=104 S. Ct. 2312; 81 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 175; 1984 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 93; 52 U.S.L.W. 4669
  |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=The Texas statute requiring that a notary public be a United States citizen violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  |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>

==Background==
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==
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]]'' (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
 | 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 Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]