Case Citator › United States v. MacIntosh

United States v. MacIntosh

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
283 U.S. 605
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
1946
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. United States v. MacIntosh was overruled on its naturalization rule by Girouard v. United States. All 42 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Girouard held that refusing to bear arms for religious reasons does not by itself bar citizenship. The confirmed treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to cite other MacIntosh statements about Congress's naturalization authority and military service.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

42 later cases cite United States v. MacIntosh; 42 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. MacIntosh?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Supreme Court rejected MacIntosh's rule that an applicant unwilling to bear arms cannot be naturalized, and allowed citizenship despite the applicant's religious objection to combatant service.

    Girouard v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    While there are some factual distinctions between this case and the Schwimmer and Macintosh cases, the Bland case on its facts is indistinguishable. But the principle emerging from the three cases obliterates any factual distinction among them. As we recognized in In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561, 572, 577, they stand for the same general rule — that an alien who refuses to bear arms will not be admitted to citizenship. As an original proposition, we could not agree with that rule. ... We conclude that the Schwimmer, Macintosh and Bland cases do not state the correct rule of law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. MacIntosh and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace