CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Cummings v. Missouri

United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 17, 2026
Entity authorityQ19071181 ↗
Source-derived summary

Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), 4 Wall 277, 18 L. 350, also known as the Test-Oath case, is an 1867 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court held in a 5-4 decision that both state and national oath laws are unconstitutional. Cummings was a companion case of Ex parte Garland, which were also referred to as the Test-Oath Cases. Cummings involved Fr John A. Cummings, a Catholic priest who refused to take an anti-Confederacy oath that was required by the Missouri Constitution; the lower court found him guilty of perjury and sentenced to pay a $500 fine and imprisonment of not less than two years.

Cummings' defense argued that the charges violated the prohibitions of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. The Supreme Court decision came just after the American Civil War. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote a concurring opinion stating: "Both state and national oath laws were unconstitutional. The oath laws transformed acts that had not been forbidden into crimes and increased the punishment of acts that were known to be crimes. The oath laws were also bills of attainder since they were legislative acts that inflicted punishment without the benefit of a trial by a judge."

Background

In January 1865, during the American Civil War period; A Missouri Constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of Missouri was held in St. Louis, Missouri.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Cummings v. Missouri” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1867, 1865—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Cummings, Missouri and United can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q19071181. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1867 and 1865.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Cummings v. Missouri”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Cummings v. Missouri primary sources, Cummings v. Missouri archive and Cummings research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cummings v. Missouri”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Cummings v. Missouri” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.