In the case of In re Stolar (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot deny an applicant admission to its bar solely because he refused to answer questions about his political associations and beliefs during an interview with the Committee on Character and Fitness. The court held that such refusal does not necessarily indicate bad moral character or unfitness for law practice, which are legitimate grounds for denying admission to a state's bar. This decision was based on First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of association and belief, as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights concerning equal protection under law. Therefore, this ruling protected individuals from being denied professional opportunities due to their political affiliations or beliefs.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Stolar, Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the majority's decision to disbar an attorney based on his membership in the Communist Party. He argued that this ruling violated First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence presented showing that Stolar had engaged in any illegal activities or advocated overthrowing the government by force or violence as a member of said party. Therefore, according to Justice Black, mere membership should not be grounds for disqualification from practicing law. This view is grounded in his belief that lawyers should have as much right as other citizens to join political parties without fear of professional retaliation.