Legal Document

383 U.S. 825 86 Supreme Court Reporter 1148 16 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 292 Hugo DeGREGORY, Appellant,v.ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE NEW HAMPSHIRE. Number 396. Argued Feb. 24, 1966. Decided April 4, Howard S. Whiteside, Boston, Mass., for appellant. R. Peter Shapiro, Concord, N.H., appellee. Opinion of by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced BRENNAN. 1 This is third time that constitutional rights appellant challenged in investigations New Hampshire into subversion have been brought to us.1 The present case stems from an investigation Attorney General State under Rev.Stat.Ann. § 588:8—a (1965 Supp.), enacted 1957, which provides part: 2 'At any when attorney general has information he deems reasonable or reliable relating violations provisions this chapter shall make full and complete thereof report court results investigation, together with his recommendations, if any, legislation. * (T)he hereby authorized public such received him, testimony given before matters handled him as fit effectuate purposes hereof.' 3 'violations' cover a wide range 'subversive' activities designed 'overthrow, destroy alter, assist overthrow, destruction alteration of, form government state Hampshire, political subdivision force, violence.'2 588:1. 4 Appellant was willing answer questions concerning relationship knowledge Communist since fact did them.3 But refused series put earlier periods.4 His refusal, not being based on Fifth Amendment, raised important First made applicable Fourteenth Amendment. He committed jail period one year until purged himself contempt. That judgment affirmed Court. 106 N.H. 262, 209 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 712. here appeal. 382 877, 162, 15 118. 5 substantiality appellant's Amendment claim can best be seen considering what asked do. had already testified involved Party 1957 no during period. further sought disclose associations day, meetings attended, views expressed ideas advocated at gatherings.5 Indeed, relied entirely upon 1955 Report Subversive Activities justify renewed connects only 1953, over 10 years prior giving rise 6 On basis our cases, every reason anticipate details might testify would reported pamphlet purporting describe nature Hampshire. (See Uphaus versus Wyman, 360 72, 88—95, 79 1040, 1050—1054, 1090, Brennan, J., dissenting.) Admittedly, 'exposure—in sense disclosure—is inescapable incident presence subversive persons within State.' supra, 81, 1046. whatever justification may supported exposure absent here; staleness both its subject matter makes indefensible one's associational past—exposure objectionable damaging extreme whose do command majority approval.6 7 'The invoked against infringement protected freedoms law lawmaking.' Watkins States, 354 178, 197, 77 1173, 1184, 1273. Investigation part lawmaking well Fifth, stands barrier intrusion privacy. No attack truthfulness answered stating does serve role lacks current subversion. There showing 'overriding compelling interest' (Gibson Florida Legislative Committee, 372 539, 546, 83 889, 893, 9 929) warrant realm privacy historical, current. Lawmaking investigatory stage properly probe historic events light thrown conditions problems. prevents use power investigate enforced contempt will without relation existing need. 197—200, 1184—1186. record devoid evidence there movement deals primarily 'world-wide communism' Federal Government. whatsoever danger sedition itself, area authority extends.7 thus 'nexus' between found exist 79, 1045. Hampshire's interest too remote conjectural override guarantee person speak not, chooses, free all governmental compulsion. 8 Reversed. HARLAN, whom STEWART WHITE join, dissenting. appears hold so limited legislative little it Constitution shields having him.* my view should existence nonexistence subversion, other legitimate concern first produce very type course inquiry. Then, permissible one, seems me witness who could called about it; & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions cannot say inquiry operations local advanced decade ago. Believing '(o)ur function purely adjudication' 'not pass wisdom efficacy' investigating scrutiny, Barenblatt 109, 125, 1081, 1092, 1115, affirm DeGregory 717, 1454, 1540; General, 368 19, 82 137, 86. After remand latter answering negative question 'Are you presently member Party?' Subsequently, new hearings were held out them arises. Although Act purports extend protection Government well, field pre-empted. See Commonwealth Pennsylvania Nelson, 350 497, 76 477, 100 L.Ed. 640. 'I am now statute books; communistic period, six one-half years. In fact, even aware books.' 'Have ever Party? 'When join 'Were paid officer 'Did access control membership financial records Hampshire? attend 'To extent District Massachusetts, party's wherein alter force violence? where advocated, abetted, advised taught means commission act constitute clear security state? known books, files, secrete funds belonging owned participate formation contribute support Hampshire?' Prosecution these apparently barred six-year limitations, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 603:1, long 1964. Gibson 543—544, 892—893; Bates City Little Rock, 361 516, 523—524, 80 412, 416—417, 480; NAACP Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 462—463, 78 1163, 1171—1172, 1488; Cf. Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 485—487, 81 247, 250—252, 231; Talley California, 362 60, 64—65, 536, 538—539, 559. n. 2. plea privilege self-incrimination interposed witness.

Classification Label: 2