http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/federal-internal-security-legislation/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_3/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_44/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_461/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_65/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_35/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_442/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_495/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_48/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_12/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_621/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_502/ <p>Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?</p><p>In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Passport Act of 1926 and other congressional statutes implicitly granted the Secretary of State the power to revoke passports. The Court noted Congress's historical recognition of "Executive authority to withhold passports on the basis of substantial reasons of national security and foreign policy." The Court further held that because the regulations were limited to cases in which there was a likelihood of "serious damage" to foreign policy, Agee's claims concerning the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the right to travel were "without merit."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_83/ <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><p>No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_481/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_7/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_16/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_9/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_287/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_436/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_5/ <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><p>No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Security Act protects "per se" members of an organization from criminal prosecution. The Smith Act, by contrast, goes beyond "per se" participation by targeting those whose membership in an organization entails their knowing and deliberate participation in criminal activity. In light of this distinction, the Court noted, the two Acts are not conflicted. Since Scales, at the very least, knew, encouraged, and provoked illegal Party activities over the course of his eight year membership, he was guilty under the Smith Act of complicity in the commission of criminal activity.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1_2/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_196/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_10/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_67/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_399/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_176/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_8/ <p>Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?</p><p>In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded the cases to a District Court for retrial. The Court interpreted the Smith Act in the following manner: First, the term "organize" was construed to mean the creation of a new organization, making the Act inapplicable to subsequent organizational acts. Second, the Court drew a distinction between the "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle" and the "advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government." The Court recognized that instances of speech that amounted to "advocacy of action" were "few and far between."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_6/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_86/