Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/389/309/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-01-18 14:39:53
Document Index: 130536612

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 782', '§ 781', '§ 784', '§ 785', '§ 786', '§ 789', '§ 790']

W.E.B. DUBOIS CLUBS OF AMERICA V. CLARK, 389 U. S. 309 (1967) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 389 > W.E.B. DUBOIS CLUBS OF AMERICA V. CLARK, 389 U. S. 309 (1967)
W.E.B. DUBOIS CLUBS OF AMERICA V. CLARK, 389 U. S. 309 (1967)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 389 U. S. 309
W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America v. Clark
On March 4, 1966, the Attorney General petitioned the Subversive Activities Control Board for an order, after appropriate hearings, requiring the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America to register with the Attorney General as a Communist-front organization. [Footnote 1] On April 26, 1966, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 310
before hearings were held, appellants attempted to bypass the Board by suing in the District Court. [Footnote 2] Appellants' complaint in the District Court alleged that the Communist-front registration provisions of the Act were unconstitutional. [Footnote 3] The complaint also alleged that the
Appellants asked the District chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 311
Court for an order declaring the Communist-front registration provisions unconstitutional and also for an order enjoining the Attorney General and the SACB from enforcing them. A three-judge District Court, convened on appellants' motion, dismissed the complaint because appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. [Footnote 4] This appeal followed.
It is evident that Congress has provided a way for appellants to raise their constitutional claims. But appellants, denying that they are within the coverage chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 312
of the Act, wish to litigate these claims in an injunctive proceeding in the District Court. The effect would be that important and difficult constitutional issues would be decided devoid of factual context and before it was clear that appellants were covered by the Act. [Footnote 8] We have previously refused to decide the constitutionality of the very provisions involved here because it was not clear that the Act would be applied to the objecting parties. American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born v. SACB, 380 U. S. 503, Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. SACB, 380 U. S. 513. Similarly, the District Court should not be forced to decide these constitutional questions in a vacuum.
Appellants rely on Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965), to support their contention that the usual rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies [Footnote 9] should not apply in this case. In Dombrowski, however, the constitutional issues were presented in a factual context. Upon a record demonstrating a history of harassment of appellants in connection with their exercise of First Amendment rights, the Court ordered a federal district court to issue an injunction against pending criminal prosecutions under state statutes. This Court held the statutes "void on their face," and it concluded that, in the circumstances of that case, if appellants were required to submit to a criminal prosecution, the injury to First Amendment freedoms which had already taken place would be compounded. Accordingly, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 313
the Court allowed appellants to assert their claims in an equitable proceeding.
The statute defines "Communist-front organization" as one which is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist-action organization and which is primarily operated for the purpose of giving chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 314
aid and support to a Communist-action organization, a Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement. 50 U.S.C. § 782(4). A Communist-front organization, as defined, is not a group engaged in action, but in advocacy; or if action is included, so is advocacy, for § 781(15) in describing the growth of the Communist movement speaks of those who seek "converts far and wide by an extensive system of schooling and indoctrination."
"[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction. . . . [I]t
Page 389 U. S. 315
is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. . . ."
The word "revolution" has, of course, acquired a subversive connotation in modern times. But it has roots that chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 316
are eminently respectable in American history. [Footnote 2/2] This country is the product of revolution. Our very being emphasizes that, when grievances pile high and there are no political remedies, the exercise of sovereign powers reverts to the people. Teaching and espousing revolution -- as distinguished from indulging in overt act are therefore obviously within the range of the First Amendment.
I cannot believe that Dennis has any continuing vitality. It is out of line with Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, where a fascist was held to be protected by the First Amendment for espousing his creed, which most Americans find as obnoxious as communism. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 317
If an organization is classified a Communist front, serious consequences follow: employment of its members is restricted, § 784; application for or use of passports is made illegal, § 785; registration is required, § 786; use of the mails and of the radio and TV is curtailed, § 789; tax exemptions are denied, § 790. At least some of these provisions are unconstitutional under our decisions as bills of attainder or as a denial of First and Fifth Amendment rights. Yet vindication would come only after long and protracted hearings and appeals. Meanwhile, there would be a profound "chilling" effect on the exercise of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 318
First Amendment rights [Footnote 2/3] within the principle of Dombrowski v. Pfister.
First Amendment values ride on what we do today. If government can investigate ideas, beliefs, and advocacy at the left end of the spectrum, I see no reason why it may not investigate at any other part of the spectrum. Yet, as I read the Constitution, one of its essential purposes was to take government off the backs of people and keep it off. There is the line between action, on the one hand, and ideas, beliefs, and advocacy, on the other. The former is a legitimate sphere for legislation. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Page 389 U. S. 319
Ideas, beliefs, and advocacy are beyond the reach of committees, agencies, Congress, and the courts.