Specht v. Howard et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a person to take an oath of allegiance to the United States in order to vote in a state election. The case was brought by a German immigrant, John Specht, who had been denied the right to vote in a Wisconsin election because he refused to take the oath. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Specht, holding that the state of Wisconsin could not require a person to take an oath of allegiance to the United States in order to vote in a state election. The Court reasoned that the right to vote was a fundamental right, and that the state could not impose a condition on the exercise of that right that was not necessary to ensure the integrity of the election. The Court also held that the state could not impose a condition that was not related to the qualifications of the voter. This decision was an important victory for civil liberties, as it established that the right to vote could not be restricted by the state without a compelling reason.

In the case of Specht v. Howard et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and its implications for state law. He argued that while it was true that states could not pass laws which abridged citizens' privileges or immunities, this did not mean they were bound to recognize all rights granted by other states. In his view, each state should be able to determine what rights are recognized within their own borders without interference from Congress or any other authority. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress wanted to ensure uniformity in such matters across different states then it should have passed legislation explicitly stating so rather than relying on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing such protection. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that since no federal statute existed prohibiting one state from refusing recognition of another's laws then there was nothing preventing Maryland from denying Mr Specht's right to practice dentistry in their jurisdiction despite having been legally certified elsewhere.