In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robert Anastasoff Schware who was denied admission to the New Mexico bar due to his past involvement with communist organizations and previous arrests. The court held that a state cannot exclude a person from practicing law solely based on their political beliefs or affiliations unless there is clear evidence that they pose a significant threat to the public interest. Furthermore, it was determined that prior arrests without convictions do not constitute moral turpitude which could disqualify an individual from being admitted to practice law. This decision emphasized the importance of fair procedures in assessing an applicant's fitness for legal practice and underscored constitutional protections against discrimination based on political affiliation.

In the dissenting opinion for Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision undermined state authority to regulate its own legal profession. He contended that states should have broad discretion in determining who is morally fit to practice law within their jurisdiction and emphasized that past criminal behavior could be a valid consideration in such determinations. The justice also expressed concern about potential risks posed by admitting former criminals into the bar, including damage to public trust and professional integrity. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on due process rights in this context, arguing instead that an individual’s right to pursue a particular profession does not supersede a state’s responsibility to ensure high ethical standards among its attorneys.