Once more the Court is required to resolve the conflicting constitutional claims of congressional power and of an individual's right to resist its exercise. The congressional power in question concerns the internal process of Congress in moving within its legislative domain; it involves the utilization of its committees to secure "testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 160. The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.

READ MORE


355 U.S. 171 (1957) BARR v. MATTEO ET AL.         No. 409. Supreme Court of United States.    Decided December 9, 1957. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Paul A. Sweeney and Bernard Cedarbaum for petitioner.PER CURIAM.The petition for certiorari is granted. The petition presents this question: “Whether the absolute immunity from defamation suits accorded officials of the Government with respect to acts done within the scope of their official authority, extends to statements to the press by high policy-making officers, below cabinet […]

READ MORE


Each of the petitioners has been convicted of violating an identical ordinance of an Arkansas municipality by refusing a demand to furnish city officials with a list of the names of the members of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The question for decision is whether these convictions can stand under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

READ MORE


The question before us is whether the Board of Public Education for the School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the Board, purporting to act under the Pennsylvania Public School Code, discharged a public school teacher on the ground of "incompetency," evidenced by the teacher's refusal of his Superintendent's request to confirm or refute information as to the teacher's loyalty and his activities in certain allegedly subversive organizations. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it did not.

READ MORE


This case is a companion to Wilkinson v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 399. The petitioner was the witness immediately preceding Wilkinson at the hearing of a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 30, 1958. He refused to answer many of the questions directed to him, basing his refusal upon the grounds that the questions were not pertinent to a question under inquiry by the subcommittee and that the interrogation invaded his First Amendment rights. He was subsequently indicted and, after a jury trial, convicted for having violated 2 U. S. C. § 192, in refusing to answer six specific questions which had been put to him by the subcommittee.[1] The Court of Appeals affirmed, 272 F. 2d 653, relying on Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, and we granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 960.

READ MORE


366 U.S. 599 (1961) BRAUNFELD ET AL. v. BROWN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. No. 67. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 8, 1960. Decided May 29, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Theodore R. Mann argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Marvin Garfinkel and Stephen B. Narin. David Berger argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees. Arthur Littleton, Benjamin M. Quigg, Jr. and Russell C. Dilks filed a brief for the Pennsylvania Retailers’ Association, intervening defendant-appellee. *600 Briefs of amici curiae, […]

READ MORE


In 1956 the petitioner Rachel Brawner was a short-order cook at a cafeteria operated by her employer, M & M Restaurants, Inc., on the premises of the Naval Gun Factory[1] in the city of Washington. She had worked there for more than six years, and from her employer's point of view her record was entirely satisfactory.

READ MORE


These cases, coming to us from two different Circuits, present identical issues, and may appropriately be dealt with together in one opinion. The issues involve the interpretation and validity of Treas. Reg. 111, § 29.23 (o)-1 and § 29.23 (q)-1 as applied by the courts below to deny deduction as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses under § 23 (a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939[1] to sums expended by the respective taxpayer petitioners in furtherance of publicity programs designed to help secure the defeat of initiative measures then pending before the voters of the States of Washington and Arkansas.

READ MORE


This is a proceeding pursuant to § 14 (a) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 to review an order of the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring the Communist Party of the United States to register as a Communist-action organization under § 7 of the Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has affirmed the Board's registration order. Because important questions of construction and constitutionality of the statute were raised by the Party's petition for certiorari, we brought the case here. 361 U. S. 951.

READ MORE


We here review the upholding by the New York Court of Appeals of the action of the New York State Industrial *390 Commissioner terminating petitioners' registration and liability to state taxation as employers under the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law. N. Y. Labor Law, §§ 511-512, 517-518, 570, 577, 581. This determination was effected under what was conceived to be the compulsion of a federal statute, the Communist Control Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775, 50 U. S. C. §§ 841-844. which provides, in pertinent part:

READ MORE


A Florida statute requires each employee of the State or its subdivisions to execute a written oath in which he must swear that, among other things, he has never lent his "aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party."[1] Failure to subscribe to this oath *280 results under the law in the employee's immediate discharge.[2]

READ MORE


Petitioner, a native-born citizen, is a physicist who has been connected with various federal projects and who has been associated as a teacher with several of our universities. In March 1954 he applied for a passport to enable him to travel to India in order to accept a position as research physicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, affiliated with the University of Bombay. In April 1954 the Director of the Passport Office advised him that his application was denied because the Department of State "feels that it would be contrary to the best interest of the United States to provide you passport facilities at this time."

READ MORE


Once again we are called upon to review a criminal conviction for refusal to answer questions before a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives.[1] See Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155; Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190; Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399; Braden v. United States, 365 U. S. 431. The petitioner was brought to trial in the District Court for the District of Columbia upon an indictment which charged that he had violated 2 U. S. C. § 192 by refusing to answer five questions "which were pertinent to the question then under inquiry" by the subcommittee. He waived a jury and was convicted upon four of the five counts of the indictment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 108 U. S. App. D. C. 143, 280 F. 2d 691, and we brought the case here because of doubt as to the validity of the conviction in the light of our previous *458 decisions.[2] 364 U. S. 812. A careful review of the trial record convinces us that the District Court should have ordered an acquittal.

READ MORE


American railroads have always largely depended upon income from the long-distance transportation of heavy freight for economic survival. During the early years of their existence, they had virtually no competition in this aspect of their business, but, as early as the 1920's, the growth of the trucking industry in this country began to bring about changes in this situation. For the truckers found, just as the railroads had learned earlier, that a very profitable part of the transportation business was the long hauling of heavy freight. As the trucking industry became more and more powerful, the competition between it and the railroads for this business became increasingly intense until, during the period following the conclusion of World War II, at least the railroads, if not both of the competing groups, came to view the struggle *129 as one of economic life or death for their method of transportation. The present litigation is an outgrowth of one part of that struggle.

READ MORE


We must decide whether § 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 bars a broadcasting station from removing defamatory statements contained in speeches broadcast by legally qualified candidates for public office, and if so, whether that section grants the station a federal immunity from liability for libelous statements so broadcast. Section 315 reads:

"(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate."[1]
This suit for libel arose as a result of a speech made over the radio and television facilities of respondent, WDAY, Inc., by A. C. Townley—a legally qualified candidate in the 1956 United States senatorial race in North Dakota. Because it felt compelled to do so by the requirements of § 315, WDAY permitted Townley to broadcast his speech, uncensored in any respect, as a reply to previous speeches made over WDAY by two other senatorial candidates. Townley's speech, in substance, accused his opponents, together with petitioner, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, of conspiring to "establish *527 a Communist Farmers Union Soviet right here in North Dakota." Farmers Union then sued Townley and WDAY for libel in a North Dakota State District Court. That court dismissed the complaint against WDAY on the ground that § 315 rendered the station immune from liability for the defamation alleged. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, stating: "Section 315 imposes a mandatory duty upon broadcasting stations to permit all candidates for the same office to use their facilities if they have permitted one candidate to use them. Since power of censorship of political broadcasts is prohibited it must follow as a corollary that the mandate prohibiting censorship includes the privilege of immunity from liability for defamatory statements made by the speakers." For this reason it held that the state libel laws could not apply to WDAY. 89 N. W. 2d 102, 110. We granted certiorari because the questions decided are important to the administration of the Federal Communications Act. 358 U. S. 810.

READ MORE


357 U.S. 568 (1958) FIRST METHODIST CHURCH OF SAN LEANDRO ET AL. v. HORSTMANN, ASSESSOR OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. No. 485. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 30, 1958. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. Stanley A. Weigel, Lawrence Speiser and Frank B. Frederick for appellants. J. F. Coakley for appellees, and Arthur M. Carden for the City of San Leandro, appellee. PER CURIAM. The judgment is reversed. No. 382, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, ante, p. 545; No. 385, Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church, Inc., v. County of Los Angeles, ante, […]

READ MORE


These are companion cases to Speiser v. Randall and Prince v. City and County of San Francisco, ante, p. 513. The petitioners claimed the property-tax exemption provided by Art. XIII, § 1 1/2, of the California Constitution for real property and buildings used solely and exclusively for religious worship. The Los Angeles assessor denied the exemptions because each petitioner refused to subscribe, and struck from the prescribed application form, the oath that they did not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States and of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities. Each petitioner sued in the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles to recover taxes paid under protest and for declaratory relief. Both contended that the exaction of the oath pursuant to § 19 of Art. XX of the State Constitution and § 32 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code was forbidden by the Federal Constitution. The court upheld the validity of the provisions in the action brought by petitioner First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed. 48 Cal. 2d 419, 311 P. 2d 508. We granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 853. The Superior Court in the action brought by petitioner Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church, Inc., upheld the validity of the provisions under the Federal Constitution but held that § 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code violated the California Constitution because it excluded or exempted householders from the requirement. The Supreme Court of California reversed, 48 Cal. 2d 899, 311 P. 2d 540, and we granted certiorari, 355 U. S. 854.

READ MORE


Petitioner was found guilty, after jury trial, of failure to produce, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued by a Subcommittee of a Senate Committee,[1] records of a *148 union[2] showing the names and addresses of members of that organization who were employed either by the United States or by any state, county, or municipal government in the country.[3] The District Court denied a motion for acquittal or new trial. 112 F. Supp. 669. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by a divided vote. 98 U. S. App. D. C. 324, 235 F. 2d 821. On petition for a writ of certiorari we vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, an intervening decision. 354 U. S. 929. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, once more affirmed by a divided vote. 103 U. S. App. D. C. 319, 258 F. 2d 413. We again granted certiorari. 357 U. S. 904.

READ MORE


From a decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia holding § 202 (n) of the Social Security Act (68 Stat. 1083, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (n)) unconstitutional, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare takes this direct appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. The challenged section, set forth in full in the margin,[1] provides for the termination of old-age, survivor, *605 and disability insurance benefits payable to, or in certain cases in respect of, an alien individual who, after September 1, 1954 (the date of enactment of the section), is deported under § 241 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)) on any one of certain grounds specified in § 202 (n).

READ MORE


366 U.S. 617 (1961) GALLAGHER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., ET AL. No. 11. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 7-8, 1960. Decided May 29, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Joseph H. Elcock, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Edward J. McCormack, Jr., Attorney General, John Warren McGarry, Assistant Attorney General, Arthur E. Sutherland and S. Thomas Martinelli. *618 Herbert B. Ehrmann argued the cause for appellees. With him […]

READ MORE


1 2 3 4