In Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that a state cannot deny an applicant admission to its bar solely because he refused to answer questions about his political beliefs or associations. The case involved an applicant who was denied admission by the Arizona State Bar on grounds that he had not cooperated with their investigation into his fitness for practice due to refusing to answer certain questions regarding his political affiliations and activities during law school. In a 5-4 decision, the court held this denial violated First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection under law and due process. The ruling emphasized that while states have broad power in admitting attorneys, they must respect constitutional protections when exercising such authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. He contended that a state cannot constitutionally condition an applicant’s admission to practice law on his political beliefs or affiliations unless it can demonstrate that these pose a clear and present danger to society. In this case, he believed there was no such evidence presented against Baird. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how questions about communism were asked during bar admissions interviews - some applicants were questioned while others weren't - which suggested arbitrary enforcement by the committee. He also criticized the majority's reliance on Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (1957) as precedent because its ruling was based on flawed reasoning and should be overruled instead.