Cases by Issue - Federal Internal Security Legislation

Regan v. Wald

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-436

Petitioner

Regan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 222 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 1984

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of Petitioners)

Leonard B. Boudin (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Regan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. App.

None

Haig v. Agee

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:15 +0000

Location

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW Washington DC 20520

Washington, DC 20520

United States

38° 53' 38.4684" N, 77° 2' 57.93" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-83

Petitioner

Haig

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Agee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 280 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Melvin L. Wulf (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Haig, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

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."

Kleindienst v. Mandel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-16

Appellee

Mandel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kleindienst

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 753 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kleindienst, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Bryson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bryson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 64 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1969

Decided

Monday, December 8, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

Schneider v. Smith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

196

Petitioner

Smith

Respondent

Schneider

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 17 (1968)

Argued

December 12-13, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Schneider, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

United States v. Laub

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

176

Appellee

Laub

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 475 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, November 16, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Laub, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Travis v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Travis

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 491 (1967)

Argued

November 15-16, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Travis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

United States v. Robel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Robel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 258 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 14, 1966

Reargued:

Monday, October 9, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Robel, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Dennis v. United States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:01 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

502

Petitioner

Raymond Dennis et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 855 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Advocates

Telford Taylor (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Nathan Lewin (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Raymond Dennis and others were members of the Communist Party; they were also officers and members of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. They filed false affidavits between 1949 and 1955 to satisfy the stipulations of 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which required all union officers to submit non-Communist affidavits. The union officials retained their Communist Party affiliations, filed the affidavits, and enabled the union to use the services of the National Labor Relations Board. The union officers were indicted by the United States District Court for conspiracy to fraudulently obtain the services of the National Labor Relations Board.

Question

Does the indictment charge a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government consistent with 18 U.S.C. 371? 2. Is section 9(h) of the Taft- Hartley Act a bill of attainder in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution? 3. Did the trial court err in denying the defense's request for access to grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses or in camera inspection of the testimony?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dennis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 371

Yes, not addressed, and yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the indictment properly charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 371. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Abe Fortas, argued that the conspiracy of filing the false affidavits was intentional and that the events of filing the affidavits and using the NLRB facilities together were a “concert of action” with the purpose of defrauding the Government. The Court refused to hear the question of the constitutionality of 9(h) as the union officers' attempt was to circumvent the law. The relevant standard, according to Fortas, is that the Court will not hear a constitutionality claim to supplant a "voluntary, deliberate, and calculated course of fraud and deceit," as conspiracy to defraud is not an appropriate way to challenge acts of government. The Court also held that the defense should have been allowed access to the grand jury minutes containing the prosecution witnesses' testimonies with an opportunity to question the witnesses regarding their statements. The majority opinion maintained that the union officers exceeded the particularized need standard that is used to evaluate access to grand jury testimony, and thus access should have been granted to the defense, especially as an evaluation is best made by a defense advocate and not a trial judge during in-camera inspection. Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black joined this part of the majority opinion but dissented from the remainder. The Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Albertson v. Sacb

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Albertson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 70 (1965)

Argued

Monday, October 18, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Albertson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

United States v. Brown

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

Longshore and Warehouse Union

1188 Franklin St San Francisco CA 94109

San Francisco, CA 94109

United States

37° 47' 6.5868" N, 122° 25' 22.3644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

399

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 437 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Richard Gladstein (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959 forbids any member of the Communist Party from serving as an executive officer of a labor union, with the goal of preventing politically-motivated strikes that would pose a danger to the national economy. Archie Brown, a San Francisco longshoreman and admitted member of the Communist Party, was three times elected to the executive board of the local International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union from 1959 through 1961. On May 24, 1961, Brown was charged with violating section 504 of the LMRDA. No evidence was presented at trial suggesting that Brown was involved in any other illegal activity or plotting a political strike. Brown was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction and found that section 504 violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. In response to appeal by the United States to the Supreme Court, Brown also argued that section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder, a law that targets a single individual or group, and therefore violates Article I, Section 9.

Question

Does section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 violate the First or Fifth Amendments or Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brown, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

Yes, section 504 violates Article I of the Constitution. In 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court found that section 504 was indeed a bill of attainder. Section 504, the Chief Justice argued, "plainly" constituted a bill of attainder, defined in the opinion as "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups," by designating "in no uncertain terms the persons who posses the feared characteristics." After finding that section 504 violated the Bill of Attainder Clause, the Court found no need to address questions pertaining to the First and Fifth Amendments.

Zemel v. Rusk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Rusk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zemel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 1 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rusk, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

None

Brigade Veterans v. Sacb

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brigade Veterans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 513 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brigade Veterans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

American Committee v. Sacb

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

American Committee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 503 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Committee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Aptheker v. Secretary Of State

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

461

Appellee

Secretary Of State

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Aptheker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 500 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Aptheker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Rabinowitz v. Kennedy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

287

Petitioner

Rabinowitz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kennedy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 605 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kennedy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 611

None

Killian v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Killian

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 231 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Advocates

David B. Rothstein (for the petitioner)

Basil R. Pollitt (for the petitioner)

Kevin T. Maroney (for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Killian, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

Communist Party v. Catherwood

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

495

Petitioner

Communist Party

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catherwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 389 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, May 4, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Communist Party, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Travis v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Travis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 631 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, December 13, 1960

Decided

Monday, January 16, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Travis, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Communist Party v. Control Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Communist Party

Respondent

Control Board

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 1 (1961)

Argued

October 11-12, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Control Board, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Noto v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Noto

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 290 (1961)

Argued

October 10-11, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Noto, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Scales v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Scales

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 203 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1959

Reargued:

Monday, October 10, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1961

Advocates

Telford Taylor (Reargued the cause for the petitioner)

John F. Davis (Reargued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

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.

Dayton v. Dulles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

621

Petitioner

Dayton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dulles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 144 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, April 10, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dayton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

None

Kent v. Dulles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

481

Petitioner

Kent

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dulles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 116 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, April 10, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Advocates

Leonard B. Boudin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

J. Lee Rankin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kent, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

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.

Bonetti v. Rogers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bonetti

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rogers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 691 (1958)

Argued

Monday, April 7, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bonetti, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Rowoldt v. Perfetto

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rowoldt

Respondent

Perfetto

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 115 (1957)

Argued

November 13-14, 1956

Reargued:

Monday, October 14, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rowoldt, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Yates v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Yates

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

Schneiderman v. United States, No. 7

Richmond v. United States, No. 8

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 298 (1957)

Argued

October 8-9, 1956

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1957

Advocates

Robert W. Kenny (Argued the cause for the petitioner in Schneiderman v. United States)

Ben Margolis (Argued the cause for the petitioners in Yates v. United States)

Philip R. Monahan (Argued the cause for the United States)

Augustin Donovan (Argued the cause for the petitioners in Richmond v. United States)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Yates, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

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."

Cole v. Young

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

442

Petitioner

Cole

Respondent

Young

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 536 (1956)

Argued

Tuesday, March 6, 1956

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1956

Advocates

David I. Shapiro (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Donald B. MacGuineas (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") fired Kendrick Cole when it determined that his employment was not "clearly consistent with the interests of national security." Mr. Cole was a food and drug inspector and a "preference-eligible veteran," but was charged with having "a close association with individuals reliably reported to be Communists." Mr. Cole appealed his discharge to the Civil Service Commission, which denied his appeal, finding that the Veterans' Preference Act did not afford Mr. Cole a right of appeal under the circumstances. Mr. Cole brought an action seeking declaratory judgment in the District of Columbia federal district court alleging that his discharge was invalid and that the Civil Service Commission improperly denied his appeal. The district court dismissed the case and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed.

Question

When may an employee be discharged under the Veterans' Preference Act for implicating national security?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cole, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 64 Stat. 476

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that the discharge of an employee without determination that his position was one in which he could adversely affect national security was unauthorized by the Veterans' Preference Act. With Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the Act's use of "national security" only relates to the nation's safety, and not the general welfare. Moreover, there was no determination that Mr. Cole's position within the FDA affected national security as the term is used in the Act. Therefore, the Court concluded, Mr. Cole's discharge was invalid.

Communist Party v. Control Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Communist Party

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Control Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 115 (1956)

Argued

Thursday, November 17, 1955

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Communist Party, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None