Document: 368 U.S. 278 82 S.Ct. 275 7 L.Ed.2d 285 David Walton CRAMP, Jr., Appellant,v.BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. No. 72. Argued Oct. 12 and 16, 1961. Decided Dec. 11, Tobias Simon Howard W. Dixon, Miami, Fla., for appellant. J. R. Wells, Orlando, appellee. Richard Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, Tallahassee, amicus curiae. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 A Florida statute requires each employee State or its subdivisions to execute a written oath in which he must swear that, among other things, has never lent his 'aid, support, advice, counsel influence Communist Party.'1 Failure subscribe this results under law employee's immediate discharge.2 2 After appellant had been employed more than nine years as public school teacher Orange County, it was discovered 1959 that required statutory oath.3 When requested do so refused. He then brought an action state circuit court asking judgment declaring requirement unconstitutional, injunction forbidding appellee, County Board Public Instruction, from requiring him discharging failure so. The held valid denied prayer injunction. Supreme Court affirmed, 125 So.2d 554, is appeal affirmance. Having doubt jurisdiction Court, we postponed decision preliminary question until hearing on merits. 366 934, 81 1660, 6 846. I. 3 In complaint Cramp alleged 'he has, does will support Constitution United States Florida; not member Party; not, lend aid, believe overthrow Government by force violence; any organization party believes teaches directly indirectly violence.' further 'is loyal American decline aforesaid fear penalties provided false oath.' 4 It these sworn statements raise two related but separate questions our appeal. First, did rest decision, at least alternatively, upon ground appellant, because statements, lacked standing attack oath? If so, should have consider applicability 'the settled rule where rests grounds, one federal nonfederal character, fails if independent adequate judgment.' Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 207, 210, 56 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158. Secondly, deprive irrespective what may decided? 5 ruled 'because allegations own unequivocally demonstrated no assault subject grounds bill attainder, ex post facto law.' 560. We assume ruling would operate foreclose consideration confined mentioned. But, addition asserting constitutes beginning also claimed constitutionally invalid quite different reasons—that impinges protected right free speech association, language vague uncertain deny due process law. As read both constitutional issues were decided their merits, without even implicit reliance doctrine law.4 Whether is, however, issue bring judgment. Tileston Ullman, 318 44, 63 493, 87 603; Doremus Education, 342 429, 72 394, 96 475. controlling whether 'has sustained immediately danger sustaining some direct injury result (the statute's) enforcement * *.' Commonwealth Massachusetts Mellon, 262 447, 488, 43 597, 601, 67 1078. absence specific allusion made, there can be inflict serious suffer discharge employment. See Workers America (C.I.O.) Mitchell, 330 75, 91—92, 556, 565, 91 754; Adler 485, 380, 517, 27 A.L.R.2d 472. argument self-exonerating conclusively show could possibly sustain executing oath, consequently undercut validity 8 Whatever merits argument, think, application appellant's claim unconstitutionally vague. vices inherent statute—the risk unfair prosecution potential deterrence conduct repeatedly pointed out decisions. Connally General Construction Co., 269 385, 391, 46 126, 127, 70 322; Cline Frink Dairy 274 445, 465, 47 681, 687, 71 1146; Stromberg People California, 283 359, 369, 51 532, 535, 75 1117; Herndon Lowry, 301 242, 258—259, 57 732, 739, 1066; Lanzetta New Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 888; Winters York, 333 507, 68 665, 92 840. Smith 361 147, 151, 215, 217, 205. These are dangers all who compelled indefinite exposed. Cf. Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 96—98, 60 736, 742, 84 1093. 9 There nothing indicate subjected hazards same degree employees take oath. most said having subscribed truthfully understands language. But very vice complains others with reason interpret differently. argues, words, risks criminal despite past contained complaint.5 cannot say lacks simply now personally eventually prevail event prosecuted perjury. Staub City Baxley, 355 313, 319, 78 277, 280, 302; Jones Opelika, 316 584, 602, 62 1231, 1241, 86 1691, dissenting adopted per curiam rehearing, 319 103, 104, 890, 1290; Cahoon, 553, 562, 582, 585, 1264. 10 conclude liberty property law, turn, therefore, claim. II. 11 first considered provisions legislative Diez, 97 105, case involving indictment upheld constitutionality legislation only finding '* when takes like Party, representing done knowingly.' So.2d, 110. present adhered construction statute, characterizing Diez element scienter requirements statute.' 557. accept view statute's meaning, course must. This authoritative interpretation 'puts words definitely amended legislature.' 514, 669, Kingsley Intern. Pictures Regents, 360 684, 688, 79 1362, 1365, 1512; Albertson Millard, 345 73 600, 983; Burnison, 339 87, 503, 94 675; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. R.R. Commissioners, 332 495, 167, 99. decided, then, compel those service they 'knowingly counsel, Party.' More precisely, consistently Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment either such subsequent perjury, face dismissal service? provision here question, noted, says advocacy violent government. membership affiliation present. completely lacking terms susceptible objective measurement. Those swear, rather, unending ever knowingly 'aid,' 'support,' 'advice,' 'counsel' 'influence' Party. What phrases mean? too distant Party candidates appeared regularly legally ballot many local elections. Elsewhere occasion endorsed supported nominated others. Could cast vote candidate safely lawyer represented members confidence honesty Party? journalist defended rights conscientiously 'support'? Indeed, anyone honestly cause contemporaneous knowledge it? 13 absurdity possibilities brings into focus extraordinary ambiguity With vagaries mind, unrealistic suggest compulsion might weigh heavily whose conscientious scruples sensitive. While perhaps fanciful suppose perjury instituted kind suggested, strain imagination envision possibility types equally guiltless knowing behaviour. blinking reality acknowledge us always ready affix label ideas violently oppose. And experience prosecutors human. 14 think demonstrably falls within compass decisions hold forbids doing act men common intelligence necessarily guess meaning differ violates essential 322. 'No peril life, speculate penal statutes. All entitled informed commands forbids.' 453, 619, 888. 'Words fluid much trap innocent ancient laws Caligula.' Cardiff, 344 174, 176, 189, 190, 200. 'In light decisions, appears mere inspection general penalty prescribed violation denial itself invalid, exaction obedience standard really all.' Champlin Refining Corporation Commission Oklahoma, 286 243, 52 559, 568, 76 1062. 15 unconstitutional vagueness aggravated where, here, operates inhibit exercise individual freedoms affirmatively Constitution. stricter standards permissible applied potentially inhibiting effect speech; man less dissemination loser.' 'The maintenance opportunity political discussion end government responsive people changes obtained lawful means, security Republic, fundamental principle system. face, authoritatively construed, permit punishment fair use repugnant guaranty Amendment.' 536, 1117. 1093; 16 Wieman Updegraff, concerned 'whether abstract employment exists.' 192, 219, 216. Nor power safeguard disloyalty. Slochower 350 551, 637, 100 992; enough reaffirm 'that protection extend servant exclusion pursuant patently arbitrary discriminatory.' supra, 219. fact person office excuse barring state-imposed criteria forbidden Constitution.' Torcaso Watkins, 367 495—496, 1680, 1684, 982. 17 Reversed. 18 BLACK DOUGLAS join Court's opinion, adhere expressed dissents 496, 508, 392, 517; Garner Los Angeles Board, 341 716, 730, 731, 909, 917, 95 1317; Barenblatt States, 109, 134, 1081, 1097, 1115; concurrences entirety provides follows: 'All persons hereafter payroll state, departments agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, boards districts system institutions higher learning office, hereby before duly authorized acknowledgments instruments record following form: 'I, .........., citizen America, being officer .......... recipient funds officer, solemnly affirm I am my teaches, indirectly, violence. 'And shall filed records governing official employing governmental agency prior approval voucher payment salary, expenses, compensation.' Fla.Stat. § 876.05, F.S.A. (Italics added.) construed portion printed italics 'We pertinent clause, ungrammatical meant apply retrospectively 'I lend' 109. 'If §§ 876.05—876.10 herein same, authority discharged, name removed payroll, permitted receive she serving.' 876.06, 876.08, F.S.A., that: '(a)ny person, whom serving carelessly continue after failing comply 876.05—876.10' fine, imprisonment, both. execution enacted 1949 Laws 1949, c. 25046. disposed association language: 'It long recognized First absolutes themselves. asserted barrier confronted necessity balancing private against interest. certainly lightly regarded. However, indirect adverse preclude shown exist assertion necessitated exigencies wellbeing. 1115. 'As parts work adjudication guilt nor burden responsibility proving innocence guilt. Statutes type theory constitute merely stipulation qualifications disqualifications contains prohibition speak assemble peaceably. speaks advocate assembles purpose, simultaneously draw compensation seeks overthrow.' 558—559. 'Certainly instant perfectly clear requirements. minds English comply. supra.' 558. 876.05 876.10 executes subsequently proven time guilty making statement punished crime conviction.' 876.10,

Category: 2