Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board

Last updated
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 17, 1955
Decided April 30, 1956
Full case nameCommunist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Citations351 U.S. 115 ( more )
76 S.Ct. 663; 100 L. Ed. 1003
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton  · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton  · John M. Harlan II
Case opinions
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Burton, Harlan
DissentClark, joined by Reed, Minton

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (1956) [1] and 367 U.S. 1 (1961), [2] was a federal court case in the United States involving the compelled registration of the Communist Party of the United States, under a statute requiring that all organizations determined to be directed or controlled by the "world Communist movement" publicly disclose detailed information as to their officers, funds, and membership.

Contents

The case resulted in two opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, the second of which upheld the constitutionality of the registration requirement against challenges brought under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Background

In 1950, the United States Congress passed the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. Its findings read, in part:

There exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide Communist organization.

The Act required any organization qualifying as either a "communist-action" organization or a "communist-front" organization to register with the Attorney General of the United States and provided detailed information about their operations, including offices, finances, printing presses, names and addresses of officers, and in the case of "communist-action" organizationsthose determined to be "substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement...and...[that] operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world Communist movementnames and addresses of members. This registry was to be updated annually by the organization, kept available to the public by the Attorney General, and be the basis for an annual report by the Attorney General to Congress.

The Act also established the Subversive Activities Control Board, and empowered the Attorney General of the United States to petition the Board for an order that an organization register that was required to but had not done so. The Board was empowered to examine evidence, and to compel witnesses to appear before it and testify or produce documents. Review of the Board's determinations were to be reviewed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Board and lower court proceedings

On November 22, 1950, the Attorney General petitioned the Subversive Activities Control Board for an order to require that the Communist Party of the United States register as a Communist-action organization. The Party filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and though a three-judge panel denied a preliminary injunction, it issued a stay of Board proceedings pending appeal. [3] After the Supreme Court denied a petition for extension of the stay, the Party abandoned its lawsuit.

The Board conducted hearings regarding the Party from April 23, 1951 through July 1, 1952. After hearing testimony from twenty-two witnesses for the Attorney General and three for the Party, and reviewing 507 exhibits, the Board issued a 137-page report finding the Party was a "Communist-action" and ordering that it register.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals denied the Party's motion for leave to adduce additional evidence, which the Party had alleged would show that three witnesses for the Attorney General had committed perjury before the Board, and affirmed the Board's order. [4]

The Supreme Court's first decision

Though the Party challenged the constitutionality of the Act, the Supreme Court did not address these issues in its opinion, delivered by Justice Felix Frankfurter. [1] The majority found that the Attorney General had failed to deny the perjury allegations. It concluded that because the testimony of the three witness was not insubstantial, the record had been impugned and therefore the Board's order could not stand. The Court remanded the case to the Board "to make certain that (it) bases its findings upon untainted evidence."

Three justices dissented in an opinion by Justice Tom C. Clark, criticizing the Court for employing a "pretext," in order to avoid deciding the core issues that were before it.

Proceedings on remand

On remand, the Board denied several motions filed by the Party seeking to introduce additional evidence. The Court of Appeals also denied a motion by the party for leave to adduce additional evidence, but granted the Board permission to consider a motion by the Party regarding another of the Attorney General's witnesses who had also allegedly committed perjury. The Board granted the Party's motion, reopened the hearings, and the witness was recalled and crossexamined.

On December 18, 1956, the Board issued its 240-page Modified Report, finding that the recalled witness was credible but expunging the testimony of the other three challenged witnesses. Making new findings of fact, the Modified Report reaffirmed the Board's conclusion that the Party was a "Communist-action" organization and recommended that the Court of Appeals affirm its registration order. The Court of Appeals, however, remanded for the further production of documents regarding the recalled witness's testimony. [5]

The hearings were reopened, further documents were produced, and the Board struck additional testimony though not to the extent that the Party requested. The Board then issued its Modified Report on Second Remand, with findings of fact largely consisting of the findings contained in its first Modified Report, and again concluding that the Communist Party of the United States was a Communist-action organization, and again recommending that its order to register be affirmed. The same panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the order and denied the Party's motion for further discovery. [6]

The Supreme Court's second decision

Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 11–12, 1960
Decided June 5, 1961
Full case nameCommunist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Citations367 U.S. 1 ( more )
81 S.Ct. 1357; 6 L. Ed. 2d 625
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker  · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by Clark, Harlan, Whittaker, Stewart
Concur/dissentBrennan, joined by Warren
DissentWarren
DissentBlack
DissentDouglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

In an opinion again delivered by Justice Frankfurter, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act's registration requirements. [2]

First, the Court rejected the argument that the Act was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The registration requirement did not target organizations, but was predicated upon certain conduct. Second, the Court rejected the arguments that the registration requirement violated the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. Though noting that registration requirements may be invalidated on First Amendment grounds and had been by the Court in prior cases, the Court stated that the present case was different because of the seriousness of the threat that international Communism posed. The Court would not question Congress's findings regarding that threat, and would not reject its methods of dealing with it just because they might choose different methods.

Third, the Court deemed the Party's challenge under the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination premature. The Party claimed that admitting to be an officer of the Party was recognized as incriminating, and that its officers would invoke the privilege, but the Court found this speculative and noted that its officers had been a matter of public record rather than a secret. Fourth and finally, the Court rejected the Party's due process challenge that Congress's findings of a "world Communist movement" predetermined facts that should be left for adjudication. The determination that a particular organization was required to register was left to be litigated, and "[t]hat is all due process requires."

Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas each authored dissents, all of which each joined as well.

Related Research Articles

McCarthyism Phenomenon in the US consisting of making unfounded accusations of subversion and treason

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism. The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals, and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. After the mid-1950s, McCarthyism began to decline, mainly due to Joseph McCarthy's gradual loss of public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false, and sustained opposition from the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren on human rights grounds. The Warren Court made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several McCarthyist laws and directives, and helped bring an end to McCarthyism.

McCarran Internal Security Act 1950 statute authorizing US concentration camps

The Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, the McCarran Act after its principal sponsor Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), or the Concentration Camp Law, is a United States federal law. Congress enacted it over President Harry Truman's veto. It required Communist organizations to register with the federal government. The emergency detention provision was repealed when the Non-Detention Act of 1971 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon.

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that groups could sue to challenge their inclusion on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. The decision was fractured on its reasoning, with each of the Justices in the majority writing separate opinions.

Nathan Witt

Nathan Witt, born Nathan Wittowsky, was an American lawyer who is best known as being the Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from 1937 to 1940. He resigned from the NLRB after his communist political beliefs were exposed and he was accused of manipulating the Board's policies to favor his own political leanings. He was also investigated several times in the late 1940s and 1950s for being a spy for the Soviet Union in the 1930s. No evidence of espionage was ever found.

The Civil Rights Congress (CRC) was a United States civil rights organization, formed in 1946 at a national conference for radicals and disbanded in 1956. It succeeded the International Labor Defense, the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, and the National Negro Congress, serving as a defense organization. Beginning about 1948, it became involved in representing African Americans sentenced to death and other highly prominent cases, in part to highlight racial injustice in the United States. After Rosa Lee Ingram and her two teenage sons were sentenced in Georgia, the CRC conducted a national appeals campaign on their behalf, their first for African Americans.

The Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) was a United States government committee to investigate Communist infiltration of American society during the 1950s Red Scare. It was the subject of a landmark United States Supreme Court decision of the Warren Court, Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (1956), that would lead to later decisions that rendered the Board powerless.

Executive Order 9835 Prescribing Procedures for the Administration of an Employees Loyalty Program in the Executive Branch of the Government

President Harry S. Truman signed United States Executive Order 9835, sometimes known as the "Loyalty Order", on March 21, 1947. The order established the first general loyalty program in the United States, designed to root out communist influence in the U.S. federal government. Truman aimed to rally public opinion behind his Cold War policies with investigations conducted under its authority. He also hoped to quiet right-wing critics who accused Democrats of being soft on communism. At the same time, he advised the Loyalty Review Board to limit the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to avoid a witch hunt. The program investigated over 3 million government employees, just over 300 of whom were dismissed as security risks.

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957), is a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Smith Act

The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights. It is the first case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad.

The Mundt–Ferguson Communist Registration Bill was a proposed law that would have required all members of the Communist Party of the United States register with the Attorney General.

Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure membership in subversive organizations. Due process requires that individuals have scienter, and the Oklahoma statute did not accommodate this requirement.

2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders 1949–1958 series of trials against Communist Party leaders, held in New York

The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders in New York City from 1949 to 1958 were the result of US federal government prosecutions in the postwar period and during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party. Appeals from these trials reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on issues in Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290 (1961), was a 1961 United States Supreme Court case that reversed the felony conviction of a lower-echelon official of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Mundt–Nixon Bill

The Mundt–Nixon Bill, named after Karl E. Mundt and Richard Nixon, formally the Subversive Activities Control Act, was a proposed law in 1948 that would have required all members of the Communist Party of the United States register with the Attorney General.

Joseph Forer (1910–1986) was a 20th-Century American attorney who, with partner David Rein, supported Progressive causes including discriminated communists and African-Americans. Forer was one of the founders o the National Lawyers Guild and its DC chapter. He was also an expert in the "Lost Laws" of Washington, DC, enacted in 1872–1873, that outlawed segregation at business places.

William Albertson

William Albertson was a 20th-century American leader in the Communist Party of the USA who battled federal and state courts, and who in 1964 was framed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was only discovered posthumously in 1975. His widow made an out-of-court settlement in 1989 with the U.S. Government for $170,000.

References

  1. 1 2 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (1956). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 1 2 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 (1961). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  3. Communist Party of the United States v. McGrath, 96F. Supp.47 (D.D.C.1951).
  4. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 223 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1955).
  5. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 254 F.2d 314 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
  6. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 279, 277 F.2d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1960).