Cases by Issue - Legislative Investigations

Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:08 +0000

Location

US Servicemen's Fund

135 West 49th Street New York NY 10011

New York, NY 10011

United States

40° 45' 34.5528" N, 73° 58' 53.8608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1923

Petitioner

Eastland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Servicemen's Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 491 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1975

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)

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

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

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.

Dombrowski v. Eastland

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118

Petitioner

Dombrowski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eastland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 82 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gojack v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

594

Petitioner

Gojack

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. 702 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gojack, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 192

None

Degregory v. New Hamp. Atty. Gen.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

396

Appellee

New Hamp. Atty. Gen.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Degregory

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 825 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Degregory, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Wheeldin v. Wheeler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

493

Petitioner

Wheeldin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wheeler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 647 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wheeler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Silber v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

454

Petitioner

Silber

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 717 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, April 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Silber, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

None

Grumman v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

436

Petitioner

Grumman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 288 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, April 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Grumman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Yellin v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Yellin

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

374 U.S. 109 (1963)

Argued

April 18-19, 1962

Reargued:

Thursday, December 6, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Yellin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Russell v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Russell

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

Shelton v. United States, No. 9

Whitman v. United States, No. 10

Liveright v. United States, No. 11

Price v. United States, No. 12

Gojack v. United States, No. 128

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 749 (1962)

Argued

December 6-7, 1961, December 11-12, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Russell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 192

None

Gibson v. Florida Legis. Investigation Comm.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:59 +0000

Location

Florida General Assembly

S. Monroe St. and Apalachee Pkwy Tallahassee FL 32301

Tallahassee, FL 32301

United States

30° 26' 17.4912" N, 84° 16' 50.2536" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gibson

Respondent

Florida Legis. Investigation Comm.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 539 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1961

Reargued:

October 10-11, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1963

Facts of the Case

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) received much criticism from state legislators as it pushed ahead with litigation to combat segregation. The State of Florida, in 1959, established a Legislative Investigation Committee to study what were called "subversive organizations." Gibson, president of the Miami branch of the NAACP, was subpoenaed before the committee and asked to produce a membership list of his organization. He refused and was found in contempt.

Question

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?

Conclusion

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.

Deutch v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

233

Petitioner

Deutch

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 456 (1961)

Argued

March 22-23, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Deutch, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 192

None

Slagle v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

105

Petitioner

Slagle

Respondent

Ohio

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 259 (1961)

Argued

February 27-28, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Slagle, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Braden v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Braden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 431 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, November 17, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Wilkinson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wilkinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 399 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, November 17, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Mcphaul v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mcphaul

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. 372 (1960)

Argued

Thursday, October 13, 1960

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Raley v. Ohio

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

175

Petitioner

Raley

Respondent

Ohio

Consolidation

No. 463, Morgan v. Ohio

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 423 (1959)

Argued

April 22-23, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Raley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Flaxer v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Flaxer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

358 U.S. 147 (1958)

Argued

Wednesday, November 19, 1958

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Flaxer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Barenblatt v. United States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:58 +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.

Petitioner

Barenblatt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 109 (1959)

Argued

Tuesday, November 18, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Advocates

Edward J. Ennis (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

During hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Lloyd Barenblatt, a university professor, refused to answer questions concerning his political and religious beliefs along with his associational activities. He was found in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation.

Question

Did the House Committee's investigation into Barenblatt's affiliations with the Communist Party transgress his First Amendment protections which limit congressional inquiries?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.

Scull v. Virginia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Scull

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

359 U.S. 344 (1959)

Argued

Tuesday, November 18, 1958

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Scull, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Uphaus v. Wyman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wyman

Respondent

Uphaus

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 72 (1959)

Argued

November 17-18, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Watkins v. United States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:57 +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.

261

Petitioner

John Watkins

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 178 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, March 7, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1957

Advocates

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Lee Rankin (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

In 1954, John Watkins, a labor organizer, was called upon to testify in hearings conducted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Watkins agreed to describe his alleged connections with the Communist Party and to identify current members of the Party. Watkins refused to give information concerning individuals who had left the Communist Party. Watkins argued that such questions were beyond the authority of the Committee.

Question

Did the activities of the Un-American Activities Committee constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Watkins, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

175

Appellee

New Hampshire

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sweezy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Argued

Tuesday, March 5, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sweezy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Uphaus v. Wyman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

336

Appellee

Wyman

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Uphaus

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 388 (1960)

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wyman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None