http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/federal-internal-security-legislation/ 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) Wed, 14 Jan 1981 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1974, Philip Agee, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced a campaign "to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating." Over the next several years, Agee successfully exposed a number of CIA agents and sources working in other countries. When Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport, Agee filed suit claiming that Haig did not have congressional authorization to do so. Agee also claimed that the action violated his right to travel, his First Amendment right to criticize the government, and his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.</p> <p>In 1974, Philip Agee, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced a campaign "to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating." Over the next several years, Agee successfully exposed a number of CIA agents and sources working in other countries. When Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport, Agee filed suit claiming that Haig did not have congressional authorization to do so. Agee also claimed that the action violated his right to travel, his First Amendment right to criticize the government, and his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?</p> 80-83_19810114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_83/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 10 Apr 1958 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Rockwell Kent applied for and was refused a passport to visit England. In addition to informing him that his application refusal rested on his Communist Party affiliations, the Passport Office Director told Kent that in order for a passport to be issued a hearing would be necessary. The Director instructed Kent to submit an affidavit as to whether he was a current or past Communist. Upon the advice of counsel, Kent refused to sign the affidavit but did participate in a hearing at which he was once more asked to sign an affidavit concerning his Communist affiliations. When he refused the affidavit, the Passport Department advised Kent that no further action would be taken on his passport request until he satisfied the affidavit requirement. On appeal from consecutive adverse rulings in both district and appellate court, the Supreme Court granted Kent certiorari.</p> <p>Rockwell Kent applied for and was refused a passport to visit England. In addition to informing him that his application refusal rested on his Communist Party affiliations, the Passport Office Director told Kent that in order for a passport to be issued a hearing would be necessary. The Director instructed Kent to submit an affidavit as to whether he was a current or past Communist. Upon the advice of counsel, Kent refused to sign the affidavit but did participate in a hearing at which he was once more asked to sign an affidavit concerning his Communist affiliations. When he refused the affidavit, the Passport Department advised Kent that no further action would be taken on his passport request until he satisfied the affidavit requirement. On appeal from consecutive adverse rulings in both district and appellate court, the Supreme Court granted Kent certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Could the Executive's Passport Department defer or refuse the issuance of passports to individuals suspected of being Communists or of traveling abroad to further Communist causes?</p> 481_19580410-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_481/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 24 Apr 1984 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 83-436_19840424-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_436/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 Mon, 08 Oct 1956 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. This case was decided in conjunction with Richmond v. United States and Schneiderman v. United States.</p> <p>Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. This case was decided in conjunction with Richmond v. United States and Schneiderman v. United States.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?</p> 6_19561008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_6/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist