In the case of In re Anastaplo, George Anastaplo, a law school graduate and lecturer at the University of Chicago was denied admission to the Illinois bar due to his refusal to answer questions about his political affiliations during an interview with the Character Committee. The committee wanted him to disclose whether he was a member of the Communist Party. He argued that such questions were irrelevant and violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in 1960 by a vote of 5-4, stating that states have broad power in setting standards for licensing lawyers which includes assessing their loyalty and integrity. They concluded that Anastaplo's refusal could be interpreted as evidence against these qualities required for practicing law.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Anastaplo, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated George Anastaplo's First Amendment rights. He contended that a person should not be denied their professional license simply because they refuse to answer questions about their political beliefs or affiliations. According to Justice Black, such an approach undermines freedom of speech and thought by punishing individuals for holding unpopular views or refusing to disclose them. Furthermore, he criticized the use of "guilt by association" reasoning in denying Anastaplo his legal license due to suspected Communist ties. He believed this was contrary to principles of individual guilt and innocence under U.S law. Lastly, he emphasized that loyalty oaths like those required by Illinois' bar admission process were ineffective security measures which only served as tools for repression.