http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Tue, 18 Nov 1958 12:00:00 -0500 <p>During hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Lloyd Barenblatt, a university professor, refused to answer questions concerning his political and religious beliefs along with his associational activities. He was found in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation.</p> <p>During hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Lloyd Barenblatt, a university professor, refused to answer questions concerning his political and religious beliefs along with his associational activities. He was found in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the House Committee's investigation into Barenblatt's affiliations with the Communist Party transgress his First Amendment protections which limit congressional inquiries?</p> 35_19581118-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_35/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 30 Mar 1959 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.</p> <p>The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.</p><br/><br/><p>Did a law which required a specific type of rear mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on Illinois's state highways conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?</p> 94_19590330-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_94/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 28 Aug 1958 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Governor and the Legislature of Arkansas openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. They refused to obey court orders designed to implement school desegregation. Local officials delayed plans to do away with segregated public facilities.</p> <p>The Governor and the Legislature of Arkansas openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. They refused to obey court orders designed to implement school desegregation. Local officials delayed plans to do away with segregated public facilities.</p><br/><br/><p>Were Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation?</p> 1_19580828-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 29 Apr 1959 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Smith Act's membership clause prohibited membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government. Junius Scales was criminally charged with membership in the Communist Party of the United States ("Party") because it advocated the overthrow of the government "as speedily as circumstances would permit." Challenging his felony charge, Scales claimed that the Internal Security Act of 1950 ("Security Act") stated that membership in a Communist organization shall not constitute a per se violation of any criminal statute. After failing in both a district and appellate court, Scales' appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.</p> <p>The Smith Act's membership clause prohibited membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government. Junius Scales was criminally charged with membership in the Communist Party of the United States ("Party") because it advocated the overthrow of the government "as speedily as circumstances would permit." Challenging his felony charge, Scales claimed that the Internal Security Act of 1950 ("Security Act") stated that membership in a Communist organization shall not constitute a per se violation of any criminal statute. After failing in both a district and appellate court, Scales' appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Does a Communist Party member's conviction under the Smith Act, which makes a felony the knowing membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government, violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause in light of the apparent protections afforded to such members under the Internal Security Act?</p> 1_19590429-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1_2/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 10 Oct 1960 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Smith Act's membership clause prohibited membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government. Junius Scales was criminally charged with membership in the Communist Party of the United States ("Party") because it advocated the overthrow of the government "as speedily as circumstances would permit." Challenging his felony charge, Scales claimed that the Internal Security Act of 1950 ("Security Act") stated that membership in a Communist organization shall not constitute a per se violation of any criminal statute. After failing in both a district and appellate court, Scales' appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.</p> <p>The Smith Act's membership clause prohibited membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government. Junius Scales was criminally charged with membership in the Communist Party of the United States ("Party") because it advocated the overthrow of the government "as speedily as circumstances would permit." Challenging his felony charge, Scales claimed that the Internal Security Act of 1950 ("Security Act") stated that membership in a Communist organization shall not constitute a per se violation of any criminal statute. After failing in both a district and appellate court, Scales' appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Does a Communist Party member's conviction under the Smith Act, which makes a felony the knowing membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government, violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause in light of the apparent protections afforded to such members under the Internal Security Act?</p> 1_19601010-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1_2/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist