Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

Last updated

Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 5, 1961
Reargued October 10–11, 1962
Decided March 25, 1963
Full case nameGibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee
Citations372 U.S. 539 ( more )
83 S. Ct. 889; 9 L. Ed. 2d 929; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2503
Holding
On the record in this case, petitioner's conviction of contempt for refusal to divulge information contained in the membership lists of the Association violated rights of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityGoldberg, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
ConcurrenceBlack
ConcurrenceDouglas
DissentHarlan, joined by Clark, Stewart, White
DissentWhite

Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that a legislative committee cannot compel a subpoenaed witness to give up the membership lists of his organization. [1] [2]

Contents

Factual background

In 1956, a committee of the Florida Legislature initiated an investigation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)'s Miami branch. When the authority of this committee expired, a new committee was formed in 1957 to pursue the same inquiry. This new committee subpoenaed the branch's membership list. Production of such information was refused based on the right to freedom of association that was applied to state governments in NAACP v. Alabama . [2] Due to this refusal, the president of NAACP's Miami branch was convicted of contempt, sentenced, and fined. [3] [4]

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the conviction violated rights of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. [2] The court said the rights of free speech and free association "need breathing space to survive" and are protected from "subtle governmental interference", although the state does have a broad power to conduct legislative inquiries. Strict scrutiny applies, however, to investigations intruding on activity protected by the First Amendment. Distinguishing the Communist Party cases, the court took into account NAACP resolutions banning Communist members, and found no evidence of subversive connections.

Concurring opinions

Justice Hugo Black wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment only. He said "the constitutional right of association includes the privilege of any person to associate with Communists or anti-Communists, Socialists or anti-Socialists, or, for that matter, with people of all kinds of beliefs, popular or unpopular."

Justice William O. Douglas wrote a separate opinion: "The need of a referee in our federal system has increased with the passage of time...For in times of crisis, when ideologies clash, it is not easy to engender respect for the dignity of suspect minorities and for debate of unpopular issues." He said investigations by legislative committees should have a lawmaking function, and must otherwise honor constitutional boundaries:"[The] right of privacy implicit in the First Amendment creates an area into which the Government may not enter."

References

  1. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963)
  2. 1 2 3 "Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539 (1963)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 1, 2023.
  3. "The Struggle for Civil Rights and the First Amendment". National Coalition Against Censorship. Retrieved October 3, 2024.
  4. "GIBSON v. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE COMM., 372 U.S. 539 (1963)". FindLaw. Retrieved October 3, 2024.