Pennsylvania v. Nelson

Petitioner
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Respondent
Steve Nelson
Petitioner's Claim
That the Pennsylvania Supreme Court erred in overturning the conviction of Nelson, a Communist Party leader, under the state's antisedition law.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Frank F. Truscott, Special Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Herbert S. Thatcher
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Harold Burton, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 April 1956
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court found the Pennsylvania antisedition law unconstitutional and upheld the reversal of Nelson's conviction.
Significance
The outcome inNelson epitomized, for some, the ultra-liberalism of theCourt headed by Chief Justice Warren. Continual efforts of conservatives topass legislation to overturn the decision were blocked.
Steve Nelson was an acknowledged member of the Communist Party. He was convicted in state court of violating the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which outlawedsubversive organizations. He was sentenced to 20 years in jail and a fine of$10,000, plus court costs. The superior court affirmed this decision, but onappeal, it was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court . This outcome was based on a determination that there was no evidence presented at trial that triggered the state antisedition law. Neither Nelson nor the Communist Party advocated overthrow of the government of Pennsylvania. Instead, said the state supreme court, Nelson had only threatened the federal government, thus violating the federal antisedition statute known as the Smith Act of 1940.
Pennsylvania petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision, which was based on the notion of pre-emption, the rule stating that when a federal law occupies a given field, it prevails over conflicting state legislation. The Supreme Court agreed. Writing for the six-member majority, Chief Justice Warren stated that:

Since we find that Congress has occupied the field to the exclusion of parallel state legislation, that the dominant interest of the Federal Government precludes state intervention, and that administration of state Acts would conflict with the operation of the federal plan, we are convinced that the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania isunassailable.

Cold Warriors Outraged by Court's Decision in Favor of Communist Party Leader
In the mid-1950s, the liberal Court led by Chief Justice Warren came head-to-head with the conservative paranoia that helped fuel the communist witch huntled by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Those who believed that there was an international communist conspiracy to overthrown the U.S. government, and who agreedwith McCarthy that communists had infiltrated all sectors of American society, were often the same people who bitterly denounced the Warren Court. Feelings ran so high that the chief justice's public appearances were sometimes boycotted, and movements to impeach him cropped up from time to time. For the most ardent anti-communist warriors in the Cold War, Warren's opinion in Nelson--which seemed the equivalent of letting an admitted communist off ona technicality--was the last straw.
A powerful movement sprang up in Congress to pass legislation that would overturn Nelson and prevent anything like it from happening again. However, cooler heads eventually prevailed. The attempt to overturn Nelson was tied to a broader legislative proposal to block all implied federal pre-emption of state laws. Congress soon realized that the "technicality" which hadfreed Steven Nelson was in fact an important principle: the effectiveness offederal legislation is undermined when comparable but conflicting state statutes are permitted to dominate. Even some of those in Congress who were advocates of states' rights (the principle that individual state sovereignty shouldusually prevail over a strong federal government) found the prospect of doing away with federal preemption undesirable.
Although Nelson spelled the end for the Pennsylvania antisedition statute, other state antisedition laws remained on the books. Later, they were revived by various state legislators to justify arrests of demonstrators duringthe civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s and 1970s.
Related Cases

• Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
  
• Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
  
• Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).