Document: 368 U.S. 436 82 S.Ct. 464 7 L.Ed.2d 426 Howard L. NOSTRAND and Max Savelle, Appellants,v.Herbert S. LITTLE et al., Respondents. No. 571. Decided Jan. 22, 1962. Francis Hoague, for appellants. John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen. of Washington, Herbert H. Fuller, Deputy Gen., Timothy R. Malone, Asst. appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to dismiss is granted the appeal dismissed want a substantial federal question. 2 Appeal dismissed. 3 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 4 disposition that Court makes case resolves one questions presented by appeal, viz., appellants are entitled hearing before they can be discharged refusing take oath. This was holding below on remand.1 58 Wash.2d 111, 132, 361 P.2d 551, 564. 5 Yet remand purpose does not answer other tendered, which concern oath in question First Fourteenth Amendment rights. 6 Washington demands teacher (Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, § 9.81.070) requires him swear he 'subversive person,' who defined as '* * any person commits, attempts commit, or aids commission, advocates, abets, advises teaches means attempt aid commission act intended overthrow, destroy alter, assist destruction alteration of, constitutional form government United States, state political subdivision either them revolution, force, violence; with knowledge organization an described subsections (2) (3) hereof, becomes remains member subversive foreign organization.' (Italics added.) Wash.Rev.Code, 9.81.010(5), amended 1953. 8 One aspect akin we had Cramp v. Board Public Instruction, 278, 275, 285. There held required say never knowingly lent his 'aid' 'support' 'advice' 'counsel' 'influence' Communist Party unconstitutional, because it brought might bring into its net people who, parallelism conduct, said have given though cause espoused wholly lawful. 9 presents whether plans 'alter' Government States 'revolution' belongs group sponsors idea disqualified teacher. To has been objective many proposed amendments. American concept2 at least until recently greatly revered. A operates through route amendments would, arguably, keeping our ideas freedom belief expression. I mention this matter decide but indicate gravity importance. 10 judgment complaint. That action, together what do today, deprives their right declaratory relief decided. They remitted administrative afforded hearing—a get only if refuse Whether preserve proceeding full array now tender debatable, since dismisses complaint decides all questions, except hearing, against them. 11 For these reasons dissent from disposal made vote note jurisdiction. 12 stated DOUGLAS dissent, others, BLACK also dissents dismissal case. when here earlier local law resolved. Nostrand Little, 362 474, 80 840, 892. See Scales 367 203, 262, 81 1469, 782 (dissenting opinion Appendix).

Category: 2