In this case, the ACLU represented Charles Peter Duncan, a native of England who applied for U.S. citizenship and was denied on the basis of his refusal to answer questions "dealing with prior criminal activity, membership in organizations, belief in Communism, and moral character." Duncan was an oceanographer who applied for citizenship first in Virginia, and was denied, and then reapplied upon moving to San Francisco in 1979. He objected to the questions based on the belief that they violated his First Amendment rights. Rather than appeal his case, Duncan chose to reapply for citizenship in another state. On the basis that Duncan had already litigated similar issues in the Virgnia case, and that he had been apprised of the consequences of his refusal to answer the above questions, his appeal was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit writes,"The Government's brief asks this Court to assume that naturalization may be witheld for failure to answer ANY questions posed by the Government, regardless of whether or not those questions violate the Fifth and First Amendments."