Court Opinion

ID: 9423789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:09:04.746728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:46.066363
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,
concurring in the result.*
Given in combination the decisions in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511, and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, I can find no solidly acceptable course for me to take in these cases other than to concur in the judgments rendered by the Court. I do so with a good deal less reluctance than would otherwise have been the case because, despite the distinctions which are sought to be drawn between these two cases, on the one hand, and Spevack and Garrity, on the other, I find in these opinions a procedural formula whereby, for example, public officials may now be discharged and lawyers disciplined for refusing to divulge to appropriate authority information pertinent to the faithful performance of their offices. I add only that this is a welcome breakthrough in what Spevack and Garrity might otherwise have been thought to portend.

This opinion applies also to No. 635, Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273.