Sweezy v. New Hampshire

Last updated

Sweezy v. New Hampshire
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 5, 1957
Decided June 17, 1957
Full case namePaul M. Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire by Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General
Citations354 U.S. 234 ( more )
77 S. Ct. 1203, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1311, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 655
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorSweezy convicted, Merrimack County Superior Court (1954); aff'd in Wyman v. Sweezy, 100 N.H. 103, 121 A. 2d 783, (N.H. 1956); review denied, (N.H. 1956); cert. granted, 352 U.S. 812(1956).
SubsequentRemanded to the New Hampshire Supreme Court; petition for rehearing denied, 355 U.S. 852(1957).
Holding
Due to the unknown government interest into Sweezy's lectures and the lack of legislative oversight of the investigation, appellant's conviction violated his right to due process.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinions
PluralityWarren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan
ConcurrenceFrankfurter, joined by Harlan
DissentClark, joined by Burton
Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, XIV

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that jailing an academic when he refused to answer questions about university lectures he had given was a violation of due process. [1] On a larger scale, the decision established constitutional protections for academic freedom and reined in the investigative powers of state legislatures.

Contents

Background

In 1951, the New Hampshire General Court, the legislature of New Hampshire, passed an act that empowered the New Hampshire Attorney General to investigate subversion; that act, the Subversive Activities Act of 1951, was codified into state law as RSA 588. [2] The law provided for fines of up to $20,000 and imprisonment for twenty years for failing to cooperate with the Attorney General during an investigation. In 1953, [3] the legislature amended the law to allow the Attorney General to sit as a one-man legislative committee, [4] subpoenaing witnesses, requesting funding, and holding public or in camera sessions as he saw fit; thus delegated these powers, Attorney General Louis C. Wyman proceeded to begin his investigation of Communist subversion in New Hampshire later that year. [5]

His investigation looked into the connections, backgrounds, and beliefs of individuals such as Elba Chase Nelson, a former Communist candidate for governor; Willard Uphaus, a theologian and director of the New Hampshire-based World Fellowship Center, [6] Florence Luscomb, [7] the architect and activist; and Paul Sweezy, an economist and magazine editor. The latter two both contributed to the socialist magazine Monthly Review and the magazine of the Socialist Union of America, The American Socialist. [8]

Sweezy was a Marxist economist and the founding editor of the Monthly Review. [9] In January 1954, he was subpoenaed by the state Attorney General to answer questions related to his connections to socialists and communists; he was later ordered to appear again in June, to discuss the notes of a March 22 lecture on Marxism he had delivered at the University of New Hampshire. [10] In particular, Attorney General Wyman sought to discover Sweezy's beliefs about the inevitability of socialism, dialectical materialism, and whether Sweezy had advocated Marxism. [11] At both times, Sweezy refused to answer particular questions related to his connections, the lecture, and Communism.

Following his refusal to answer questions, on June 30, [12] Wyman had Sweezy found in contempt of court by the Merrimack County Superior Court, [13] but freed on $1,000 bond, pending appeal. [14] During the appeals process, Sweezy continued to lecture at the University of New Hampshire. [15] [16]

Sweezy appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction. After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Pennsylvania v. Nelson , Sweezy requested a rehearing in the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which was denied. [17]

Sweezy then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. At oral argument, Attorney General Wyman represented the state of New Hampshire.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered an opinion for a plurality of four justices, [18] noting that the circumstances of the case, including an overly broad mandate for the Attorney General of New Hampshire, warranted a reversal of Sweezy's conviction. Though touching upon academic freedom tangentially, the plurality opinion did not go so far as to cite it as the whole basis whereby the Court ruled; rather, Warren's opinion noted that "the basic discretion of determining the direction of the legislative inquiry has been turned over to the investigative agency": that Wyman, as Attorney General, operated more or less without oversight from the legislative branch. In other words, due to the "sweeping and uncertain mandate" given to Wyman and "lack of any indications that the legislature wanted the information the Attorney General attempted to elicit from petitioner [Sweezy]", the government interest was unknown, and no direction was given regarding the objective of the investigation. As such, Sweezy's conviction violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. [19]

Justice Frankfurter, a former professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a concurrence that centered on the principles of academic freedom, and how they would be affected by governmental interference. [20] Joined by Justice Harlan, Frankfurter noted that "a free society [depends] on free universities", and that institutions of higher education were shielded, in part, from the intervention of governmental authorities, which would be deleterious to the "intellectual life" of the university. He ultimately concluded that: "In the political realm, as in the academic, thought and action are presumptively immune from inquisition by political authority."

Justice Tom C. Clark dissented, joined by Justice Burton. Clark was concerned about how the majority opinion would affect the power of state legislatures to protect themselves against subversion, [21] as well as conduct and oversee investigations.

Because Justice Whittaker was seated in late March 1957, after oral arguments had concluded, he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. [22]

Aftermath

About a week after the decision, Attorney General Wyman, who held the rotating presidency of the National Association of Attorneys General that year, attacked the Court's decision during a meeting of attorneys-general in Idaho; one contemporary termed his attack "angry, hysterical, and unwarranted". [23] Backed by the New Hampshire legislature, [24] within twenty-three days of the ruling, [25] Wyman asked the Supreme Court to re-hear the case; [26] the Court denied his petition. [27]

In his review at the end of the Supreme Court term, Luther Huston of The New York Times noted that this case involved "[a]cademic freedom of speech and belief", [28] a fact with which later commentators have agreed. [20] [29]

Despite Sweezy's success before the high court, the Act continued to remain on the books until it was repealed in 1973. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hugo Black</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1937 to 1971

Hugo Lafayette Black was an American lawyer, politician, and jurist who served as a U.S. Senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937 and as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971. A member of the Democratic Party and a devoted New Dealer, Black endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt in both the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. In 1969, Dennis was de facto overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Sweezy</span> American Marxist economist (1910–2004)

Paul Marlor Sweezy was a Marxist economist, political activist, publisher, and founding editor of the long-running magazine Monthly Review. He is best remembered for his contributions to economic theory as one of the leading Marxian economists of the second half of the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Hampshire Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the supreme court of the U.S. state of New Hampshire and sole appellate court of the state. The Supreme Court is seated in the state capital, Concord. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices appointed by the Governor and Executive Council to serve during "good behavior" until retirement or the age of seventy. The senior member of the Court is able to specially assign lower-court judges, as well as retired justices, to fill vacancies on the Court.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case, seeking pre-enforcement review, that held in the majority that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives and banned doctors from advising their use. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law. The same statute would be challenged again just five years later in Griswold v. Connecticut.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John A. Durkin</span> American politician (1936–2012)

John Anthony Durkin was an American politician who served as a Democratic U.S. Senator from New Hampshire from 1975 until 1980.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the fundamental law of the State of New Hampshire, with which all statute laws must comply. The constitution became effective June 2, 1784, when it replaced the state's constitution of 1776.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louis C. Wyman</span> American politician (1917–2002)

Louis Crosby Wyman was an American politician and lawyer. He was a U.S. Representative and, for three days, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire. This was one of the shortest tenures in Senate history. He was a member of the Republican Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maurice J. Murphy Jr.</span> American politician

Maurice James Murphy Jr. was an American politician and lawyer from New Hampshire. He was the Attorney General of New Hampshire and an appointed United States Senator.

The attorney general of New Hampshire is a constitutional officer of the U.S. state of New Hampshire who serves as head of the New Hampshire Department of Justice. As of April 22, 2021, the state's attorney general is John Formella.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colorado Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Colorado. Located in Denver, the court was established in 1876. It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices who are appointed by the Governor of Colorado from a list of candidates approved by a state judicial commission. Each justice faces a retention election two years after his or her appointment and every ten years thereafter, with mandatory retirement at age 72.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kelly Ayotte</span> American attorney and politician (born 1968)

Kelly Ann Ayotte is an American attorney and politician who is the governor-elect of New Hampshire. A member of the Republican Party, she previously served as a United States senator from New Hampshire from 2011 to 2017 and as New Hampshire Attorney General from 2004 to 2009.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This case is considered a "classic" free speech case in constitutional law classes. Related court decisions are captioned Skokie v. NSPA, Collin v. Smith, and Smith v. Collin. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, per curiam. The Supreme Court's 1977 ruling granted certiorari and reversed and remanded the Illinois Supreme Court's denial to lift the lower court's injunction on the NSPA's march. In other words: the courts decided a person's assertion that speech is being restrained must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary. By requiring the state court to consider the neo-Nazis' appeal without delay, the U.S. Supreme Court decision opened the door to allowing the National Socialist Party of America to march.

Myron A. Farber is an American newspaper reporter for The New York Times, whose investigations into the deaths of several patients at an Oradell, New Jersey, hospital led to the murder trial of Mario Jascalevich, a physician at the hospital who was alleged to have used a powerful muscle relaxant in what became known as the "Dr. X" case. After refusing to turn over notes from his investigation in response to a subpoena from the defense attorney in the case, Farber was jailed for contempt and the newspaper fined, ending up spending 40 days in jail with fines of $285,000 assessed. Appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the case set a precedent for the limitations of shield laws in the United States.

Stephen Morse Wheeler was a justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court from 1957 to 1967.

Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thomas I. Emerson (1907–1991) was a 20th-century American attorney and professor of law. He is known as a "major architect of civil liberties law," "arguably the foremost First Amendment scholar of his generation," and "pillar of the Bill of Rights."

References

  1. ↑ Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).
  2. ↑ Durocher, Claudette (May 8, 1964). "DeGregory Case to be Reopened at Hearing Before Superior Court Justice on May 20". Nashua Telegraph . p. 7. Retrieved June 16, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  3. ↑ "Gregg Approves State Red Hunt". The Portsmouth Herald. June 18, 1953. p. 10. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  4. ↑ "House Expected to Back Wyman". Nashua Telegraph. July 10, 1957.
  5. ↑ "State's Communist Probe Scheduled to Start Soon". Nashua Telegraph. September 3, 1953. p. 8. Retrieved July 6, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  6. ↑ "Wyman v. Uphaus".
  7. ↑ "Woman Invokes 5th Amendment". The Portsmouth Herald . Associated Press. October 6, 1955. p. 13. Retrieved July 7, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  8. ↑ "American Socialist". www.marxists.org. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  9. ↑ Uchitelle, Louis (March 2, 2004). "Paul Sweezy, 93, Marxist Publisher and Economist, Dies". The New York Times. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  10. ↑ "2 FIGHT LECTURE INQUIRY; Challenge Compulsion on Talk at U. of New Hampshire". The New York Times. June 29, 1954. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  11. ↑ Simon, John J. (April 1, 2000). "Sweezy v. New Hampshire: the Radicalism of Principle". Monthly Review . Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  12. ↑ "Sweezy Takes Appeal to High Court". The Portsmouth Herald. Associated Press. October 1, 1954. p. 8. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  13. ↑ Inazu, John D. (2012). Liberty's refuge: the forgotten freedom of assembly. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. p. 73. ISBN   9780300176377. OCLC   842262252.
  14. ↑ Huston., Luther A. (June 18, 1957). "UNION AIDE VICTOR; Contempt Case Ruling Given by Warren-- Clark Dissents Could Affect Other Cases Another Conviction Reversed WATKINS CLEARED BY SUPREME COURT Others May be Affected Barred Some Answers Questioned Scope of Inquiry The Sweezy Case". The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  15. ↑ "SWEEZY TALK PLANNED; New Hampshire U. to Hear Editor Convicted of Contempt". The New York Times. May 15, 1956. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  16. ↑ "People of Granite State Pause to Pay Tribute to Nation's Dead". The Portsmouth Herald. Associated Press. May 31, 1956. p. 1. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  17. ↑ "New Hampshire Court Says State Sedition Laws Are Valid". Bennington Banner . Associated Press. April 20, 1956. p. 1. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  18. ↑ Hoofnagle, Chris (December 15, 2001). "Matters of Public Concern and the Public University Professor". Journal of College and University Law. 27: 669. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  19. ↑ Blanchard, Joan M.; Bender, Martin J. (2015). Patriots, Pirates, Politicians and Profit Seekers: New Hampshire Cases and the United States Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New Hampshire Bar Association. pp. 84–86.
  20. 1 2 Byrne, J. Peter (1989). "Academic Freedom: A 'Special Concern of the First Amendment'". Yale Law Journal. 99 (2): 289–293. doi:10.2307/796588. JSTOR   796588.
  21. ↑ Mimi Clark Gronlund (2010). Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark: A Life of Service. University of Texas Press. pp. 233–. ISBN   978-0-292-77914-3.
  22. ↑ Volz, Marlin M. (1958). "Mr. Justice Whittaker". Notre Dame Law Review. 33 (2): 199–211. doi: 10.5642/aliso.19851102.08 . ISSN   0745-3515.
  23. ↑ Davies, Lawrence E. (June 25, 1957). "LAW GROUP HEAD HITS HIGH COURT; New Hampshire's Attorney General Assails Decisions Curbing Investigations LAW GROUP HEAD HITS HIGH COURT Urges Four Moves". The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  24. ↑ "New Hearing Asked In Sweezy Case". Portsmouth Herald. Associated Press. July 16, 1957. p. 1. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  25. ↑ "Expect Quick Legislative Action on Sweezy Resolve". Nashua Telegraph. Associated Press. July 8, 1957. p. 1. Retrieved July 15, 2018– via Newspapers.com.
  26. ↑ "Sweezy Rehearing Asked". The New York Times. United Press International. July 17, 1957. p. 11. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  27. ↑ Pollak, Louis H. (1957). "Mr. Justice Frankfurter: Judgment and the Fourteenth Amendment". Yale Law Journal. 67 (2): 314. doi:10.2307/794168. JSTOR   794168. S2CID   151279882.
  28. ↑ Huston, Luther A. (July 1, 1957). "Review of the Session; HIGH COURT NEARS END OF LONG TERM Stirred Wide Resentment Back Bill of Rights Liberal Trend Seen COMMUNIST CASES CIVIL RIGHTS CASES F.B.I. Action Curbed LABOR CASES Union Held Employer BUSINESS CASES Mineral Rights an Issue TAX CASES MILITARY CASES CENSORSHIP CASES". The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  29. ↑ Lithwick, Dahlia; Schragger, Richard (June 1, 2010). "Jefferson v. Cuccinelli: Does the Constitution really protect a right to "academic freedom"?". Slate . ISSN   1091-2339 . Retrieved July 6, 2018.
  30. ↑ "Chapter 588 Repealed". www.gencourt.state.nh.us. Retrieved July 6, 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.