Source: https://m.openjurist.org/389/us/309
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 07:15:58
Document Index: 556042896

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 782', '§ 781', '§ 782', '§ 784', '§ 785', '§ 786', '§ 789', '§ 790', '§ 3', '§ 782', '§ 786', '§ 792', '§ 786', '§ 9']

389 U.S. 309 - Clubs of America v. Clark
389 US 309 Clubs of America v. Clark
W. E. B. DuBOIS CLUBS OF AMERICA et al.
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 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.'
Legislation curbing or penalizing advocacy even of ideas we despise is, I submit, at war with the First Amendment. Under our Constitution one's belief or ideology is of no concern to government. One can think as he likes, embrace any philosophy he chooses, and select the politics that best fits his ideals or needs. That is all implicit in the First Amendment rights of assembly, petition, and expression. Those rights merely enforce, protect, or sanction the beliefs or ideology to which one is committed. So does the right of association which we have said over and again to be part and parcel of those First Amendment rights. Basic in this scheme of values is the immunity of beliefs, ideas, and ideology from government inquiry, probing, or surveillance.1
The word 'revolution' has of course acquired a subversive connotation in modern times. But it has roots that are eminently respectable in American history.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 acts are therefore obviously within the range of the First Amendment.
'Because of the sensitive nature of constitutionally protected expression, we have not required that all of those subject to overbroad regulations risk prosecution to test their rights. For free expression—of transcendent value to all society, and not merely to those exercising their rights might be the loser.' Id., at 486, 85 S.Ct. at 1121.
A Communist-front organization under the present Act is a group promoting the world Communist movement. See 50 U.S.C. § 782(4). If it were defined as a group which, for example, collected arms for the violent overthrow of government, the case would be free of First Amendment problems. But here as in Dombrowski the statute is overbroad, bringing within its scope advocacy, espousal, and teaching of a creed or of causes for which the Communist movement stands.
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 First Amendment rights3 within the principle of Dombrowski v. Pfister.
The members of the DuBois Clubs may or may not be Communists. But as I said, I see no possibility under our Constitution of penalizing one for holding or expressing that or any other belief. The DuBois Clubs may advocate causes that parallel Communist though or Communist policies.4 They appear, for example, to advocate the termination of the hostilities in Vietnam. But so far as advocacy is concerned, I see no constitutional way of putting restraints on them so long as we have the First Amendment.
Harassing them by public hearings and by probing into their beliefs and attitudes, pillorying them for their minority views by exposing them to the hearings under the Act—these actions will have the same 'chilling' effect as the Court held the trial in Dombrowski would have had.
The term 'Communist-front organization' is defined in § 3(4) of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 989, 50 U.S.C. § 782(4). Communist-front organizations are required to register with the Attorney General. 50 U.S.C. § 786. When a Communist-front organization does not register, the Attorney General may petition the SACB for an order requiring registration. 50 U.S.C. § 792.
Appellants attacked the provisions, 50 U.S.C. §§ 786(b), (c), and (d), 'on their face and as applied' as violation of Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, Art. III, and the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Although the Communist-front provisions have been upheld by the District of Columbia Circuit, American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born v. SACB, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 393, 401, 331 F.2d 53, 61 (1963), reversed on other grounds, 380 U.S. 503, 85 S.Ct. 1148, 14 L.Ed.2d 39 (1965); Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. SACB, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 413, 331 F.2d 64, 73 (1963), reversed on other grounds, 380 U.S. 513, 85 S.Ct. 1153, 14 L.Ed.2d 46 (1965); Weinstock v. SACB, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 331 F.2d 75 (1963); Jefferson School of Social Science v. SACB, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 331 F.2d 76 (1963), their constitutionality has not been specifically determined by this Court. American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born v. SACB, 380 U.S. 503, 85 S.Ct. 1148, 14 L.Ed.2d 39 (1965); Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. SACB, 380 U.S. 513, 85 S.Ct. 1153, 14 L.Ed.2d 46 (1965). Cf. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964).
Cf. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, 568—585, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 1419—1427, 91 L.Ed. 1666 (1947).
See, e.g., Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50—51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938); Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540, 543—545, 66 S.Ct. 712, 713, 9 L.Ed. 839 (1946); Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 771—774, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 1502—1504, 91 L.Ed. 1796 (1947); Allen v. Grand Cent. Aircraft Co., 347 U.S. 535, 553, 74 S.Ct. 745, 755, 98 L.Ed. 933 (1954); Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473, 481—482, 84 S.Ct. 894, 898, 11 L.Ed.2d 849 (1964).
'The word 'people' retained for them (the Founding Fathers) the meaning of manyness, of the endless variety of a multitude whose majesty resided in its very plurality. Opposition to public opinion, namely to the potential unanimity of all, was therefore one of the many things upon which the men of the American Revolution were in complete agreement; they knew that the public realm in a republic was constituted by an exchange of opinion between equals, and that this realm would simply disappear the very moment an exchange became superfluous because all equals happened to be of the same opinion.' On Revolution 88—89 (1963).