Document: 362 U.S. 474 80 S.Ct. 840 4 L.Ed.2d 892 Howard L. NOSTRAND and Max Savelle, Appellants,v.Herbert LITTLE et al. No. 342. Argued March 30, 31, 1960. Decided May 2, Messrs. Francis Hoague Solie M. Ringold, Seattle, Wash., for appellants. Mr. Herbert H. Fuller, Olympia, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 Washington requires every public employee to subscribe an oath that he is 'not a subversive person or member of the Communist Party any organization, foreign otherwise, which engages in advocates, abets, advises, teaches overthrow, destruction alteration constitutional form government United States, State Washington, political subdivision either them, by revolution, force violence; * *.' Refusal so do 'on ground(s) shall be cause immediate termination such employee's employment.'1 2 Appellants brought this declaratory judgment action claiming Act violative due process as well other provisions Federal Constitution. One claims no hearing afforded at can explain defend his refusal take oath. The Supreme Court did not pass on point. Attorney General suggests brief prior decision thereon here, 'the should first given opportunity consider upon' it. Moreover, appellants point recent case Court, City Seattle v. Ross, 1959, 54 Wash.2d 655, 344 P.2d 216, analogous. There court overturned ordinance because it established presumption guilt without affording accused rebut same. In light these circumstances we cannot say how would construe statute 3 nature case, fact State's here under attack supplements previous statutory raising questions concerning applicability latter, principle comity with regard interpretation its own laws, bring us conclusion must remand further consideration. Cf. Williams Georgia, 1955, 349 375, 75 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161. Vacated remanded. 5 Justice DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 6 I think present useless act. has cleared up ambiguity could relevant issues posed here. 7 says grounds' 'immediate termination' employment. held stating whether 'subversive organization' includes element scienter.'1 Yet neither knowing members nor innocent are excused from taking A 'at oath,' use words seem therefore serve function type statute. If taken written, ripe decision. 8 217, does me relevant. there involved read: 9 'It unlawful anyone lawfully authorized frequent, enter, in, found place where narcotics, narcotic drugs their derivatives unlawfully used, kept disposed of.' 10 defendant question entered premises innocently knowledge presence narcotics. He was convicted, trial overruling defense innocence. 11 reversed conviction, holding unconstitutional applied. said, page 658, 218: 12 'The respondent have rewrite exclude persons upon lawful purposes, those who commissioned go there. This do. Where language plain, unambiguous, understood according natural ordinary sense meaning, itself furnishes rule construction beyond go. Parkhurst Everett, 51 292, 318 327. had difficulty discerning meaning used ordinance. 'lawfully authorized,' decided agree, carrying some express authority premises, law enforcement officer, agent, like, one goes business but authority.' (Italics added.) obviously important determination existence 'scienter' prosecution took perjury. But germane teacher right refuse tendered. command clear: discharge. That poses critical issue us. will seems irrelevancy setting case. Chapter 377, Laws 1955. pertinent part reads: 'Sec. 1. Every board, commission, council, department, agency state thereof, appoints employs supervises manner appointment employment officials employees require she communist party answer grounds construed requiring scienter. prepared tendered appellants, however, contains qualifications. It reads, material part, follows: '(2) am 'That statement voluntarily made me, pursuant full same subject penalties perjury.'

Category: 2