http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/legislative-investigations/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <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><p>The divided Court found that the Committee's actions did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, upheld Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. Justice Harlan noted that the First Amendment does not protect a witness from all lines of questioning. As long as the Congressional inquiry is pursued to "aid the legislative process" and to protect important government interests, then it is legitimate.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_35/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_54/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_396/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_233/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_118/ <p>Did the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and not violate the First Amendment?</p><p>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.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1923/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_60/ <p>Did the Florida Committee, in attempting to inform itself about activities of subversive organizations, violate Gibson's right to free speech and association as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p><p>In a close decision, the Court found that Gibson's rights had been violated. In his opinion, Justice Goldberg recognized the important right of states to inform themselves on "legitimate and vital interests." However, even though inquiring about the actions of a group such as the Communist Party may have been one of these legitimate interests, argued Goldberg, Florida did not prove that a "substantial connection" between the Miami NAACP and Communist Party activities existed. Thus, a "compelling and subordinating governmental interest" would not have been served by forcing Gibson to disclose his group's membership list.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_6/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_594/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_436/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_33/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_175/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_8/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_51/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_454/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_105/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_175/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_34/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_336/ <p>Did the activities of the Un-American Activities Committee constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power?</p><p>In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the activities of the House Committee were beyond the scope of congressional power. The Court held that both the authorizing resolution of the Committee and the specific statements made by the Committee to Watkins failed to limit the Committee's power. The Court found that because Watkins had not been given sufficient information describing the pertinency of the questions to the subjects under inquiry, he had not been accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment thus invalidated Watkins' conviction.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_261/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_493/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_37/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_35/