Document: 367 U.S. 389 81 S.Ct. 1465 6 L.Ed.2d 919 COMMUNIST PARTY, . S.A., et al., Petitioners,v.Martin P. CATHERWOOD, as Industrial Commissioner. No. 495. Argued May 4, 1961. Decided June 12, Mr. John J. Abt, New York City, for petitioners. Julius L. Sackman, Albany, N.Y., respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We here review upholding by Court Appeals action State Commissioner terminating petitioners' registration and liability to state taxation employers under Unemployment Insurance Law. N.Y. Labor Law, §§ 511, 512, 517, 518, 570, 577, 581. This determination was effected what conceived be compulsion a federal statute, Communist Control Act 1954, 68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841—844, U.S.C.A. which provides, in pertinent part: 2 'Section 2. The Congress (hereby) finds declares that Party United States, although purportedly political party, is fact an instrumentality conspiracy overthrow Government States * *. Therefore should outlawed. 3 3. Unied or any successors such party regardless assumed name, whose object purpose government State, Territory, District, possession thereof, subdivision therein force violence, are not entitled rights, privileges, immunities attendant upon legal bodies created jurisdiction laws thereof; whatever have heretofore been granted said subsidiary organization reason hereby terminated: Provided, however, That nothing this section shall construed amending Internal Security 1950, amended.' (Emphasis supplied.) 4 has 'experience rating' scheme whereby with consistent records high employment levels taxed at lower rate than would otherwise obtain. Under Federal Tax Act, 26 3301—3308, employer tax credit amount paid unemployment taxes. If taxing structure allows reduction good federally certified system, nevertheless reduced highest imposed so retains full benefit his experience rating reduction. Thus, before termination their combined petitioner, Party, U.S.A., 1%, was, according its representations, 1.1%. effect both increase 3%, provided statute.1 5 certiorari, 364 918, 284, 259, consider claims mistakenly 1954 require status and, contrariwise, § construed, York's infringed Constitution States.2 must reject outset respondent's contention Appeals' decision rested on determination, based judicial notice displaced proof, petitioners were within meaning 512 but criminal conspiracy. It entirely clear Referee,3 Appeal Board,4 Appeals5 all squarely they Act. amended remittitur, states questions construction constitutionality 'were presented necessarily passed upon,' puts matter beyond doubt.6 7 Following familiar rule Constitutional avoided wherever fairly possible, we turn once statute had occasion construe. Apart from unrevealing random remarks during course debate two Houses, there no legislative history way serves give content vague terminology contains definition, neither committee reports nor authoritative spokesmen attempt clause 'rights, thereof.' Respondent us construe language mean situation advantageous occurs reference statutory common law other considered 'right,' 'privilege,' 'immunity,' deemed withheld On basis reasoned employer, though privilege ordinary sense term, nonetheless recognition common-law contractual capacity employ, petitioners; further, employees unable insurance programs will disadvantaged finding keeping employees. it thought required employers. 8 interpretation, raising does novel constitutional questions, answers controlled decisions connection legislation dealing Coomunist must, think, rejected. Not only languageo f fall far short compelling indications particular result barring systems contemplation Revenue Service continued collect taxes Act,7 1956 dealt terms like matter, excluding old-age, survivors disability benefits, 42 U.S.C., c. 7, subchapter II, register Subversive Activities Board removing coverage Contributions 21, organization,8 thus tying exclusion administrative findings determinations 64 987; 781 seq.; see v. Board, 1, 1357, 625. 9 In face these considerations hesitate long attributing effectuate similar instance fiat. Our reluctance accept interpretation fortified difficult undesirability having conflicting interpretations establishing 'coordinated dual system' (Buckstaff Bath House Co. McKinley, 308 358, 364, 60 279, 282, 84 L.Ed. 322) insurance. 10 hold compensation system. Since unmistakably contrary premise, judgment reversed case remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 11 Judgement remanded. 12 BLACK concurs result. basic increased 3.1% Public Law 86—778, 523(c), 74 924, 982, effective 3301, 3301. Petitioners argue applied violates Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment Art. I, 9, cl. Constitution, provides 'no Bill Attainder ex post fat o passed.' also contingently assert Fourteenth claim, note 6, infra. Referee, reviewing Commissioner, stated 'the Commissioner's representatives urge effectively outlawed thus, law, Referee bound find could valid *.' (R. 5.) accepted, holding 'Congress terminated right Parties enter into contracts 7.) affirmed Referee's conclusions law. 2.) See N.Y.2d 77, page 83, 202 N.Y.S.2d 5, 8, 168 N.E.2d 242, 243, Chief Judge Desmond, whom Dye concurred, pages 90 91, 14—15, 248—249, Van Voorhis, Burke concurred. Two judges court dissented, one judge did participate. if some procedural ground, respondent contends, then violated Amendment. do reach Solicitor General, letter Clerk responding certification Attorney General drawn question case, '(t)here need file brief describing practice agencies interpreting (The 1954), information already set forth Fuld Appeals.' dissenting authorities, admittedly aware position, taken diametrically opposed continue recognize subject act.' 410(a)(17), 410(a)(17) 3121(b) (17), 3121(b)(17), August 1956, 121(c) (d), 70 839. No exclusion, made 23, imposes against involved credited. 391, 1467, supra.

Category: 2