 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(August 2017) |
| Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 4, 1982 Decided December 8, 1982 | |
| Full case name | Brown, et al. v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (Ohio), et al. |
| Docket no. | 81-776 |
| Citations | 459 U.S. 87 ( more ) 103 S. Ct. 416; 74 L. Ed. 2d 250; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 169 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Holding | |
| States cannot require a minor political party to disclose its membership or associates, when doing so would jeopardize the safety of those persons. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun (parts I, III, IV), Powell |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with political speech, and whether a state could require a minor political party to disclose its membership, expenditures, and contributors.
At the time, most states required political parties to disclose their contributions and expenditures; in 1982, the Court ruled that the Socialist Workers Party, a minor party in Ohio, was not required to disclose its contributors or recipients, on the basis of retributive animus and harassment if party functionaries did so. [1]
