Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund

Media Items
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Nancy Stearns (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Jeremiah S. Gutman (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
73-1923
Petitioner: 
Eastland
Respondent: 
U.S. Servicemen's Fund
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1972-1975)
Opinion: 
421 U.S. 491 (1975)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund , 421 U.S. 491 (1975)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1923)
Facts of the Case: 

In an effort to investigate the "administration, operation, and enforcement" of the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security subpoenaed a bank for the financial records of the United States Servicemen's Fund. This nonprofit organization had actively published newsletters and sponsored coffeehouses in which discussions critical of the Vietnam War took place. The Fund challenged the subpoena arguing that its enforcement would violate the organization's First Amendment rights since the bank records contained information about the Fund's membership.

Question: 

Did the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and not violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion: 

The Court held that the Senate Subcommittee's actions were legitimate and did not violate the Fund's First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Burger argued that the power to investigate, even through a compulsory mechanism like a subpoena, is "inherent in the power to make laws." Furthermore, the investigation was related to and aided in furthering a "legitimate task of Congress," namely, the investigation of the Internal Security Act. Burger disregarded the Fund's claim that the investigation was being conducted to expose its beliefs, many of which were "unorthodox or unpopular." He reasoned that the legitimacy of a congressional investigatory action is not derived from the motives of the members or by the information that the investigation uncovers.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Eastland, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Burger
Wrote a dissent
Douglas
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's concurrence
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a special concurrence
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist

Full Opinion by Justice Warren E. Burger