Appellant
Lawrence Speiser
Appellee
Justin A. Randall, as Assessor of Contra Costa County, California
Appellant's Claim
That the California law denying property-tax exemption to veterans who refuseto sign a loyalty oath violates the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Lawrence Speiser
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
George W. McClure
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), HaroldBurton, William O. Douglas
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark (Earl Warren did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
30 June 1958
Decision
Reversed the lower court's decision and upheld appellant's claim that the California law denying property-tax exemption to veterans who refuse to sign a loyalty oath violates the Constitution.
Significance
The ruling confirmed the types of speech protected under the First Amendment,and found that statutory provisions that force an individual to prove he isnot engaged in criminal activities violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After World War II, the spread of Communism in Eastern Europe and Asia influenced both foreign and domestic policy in the United States. Measures to defend the country against the influence of communist agitators led to intense conflicts in the area of free speech and association. Communist Party members were prosecuted under the Smith Act (the Alien Registration Act of 1940), whichmade it illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government or to belong toany organization that held such beliefs. Loyalty oaths were required of manyjob applicants, and persons who belonged to the Communist Party or other groups considered subversive were often fired. Such activities, defendants argued, were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment's guaranteeof freedom of speech. As Congress and the states passed anti-subversive legislation, the courts engaged in complex deliberations over the limits and protections of free speech.
Punishing Subversive Ideas
The state of California passed a law in 1954 requiring that a property-tax exemption for veterans be denied to anyone refusing to sign an oath of loyaltythat stated "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the UnitedStates or 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 event of hostilities." The appellant, an honorably discharged World War II veteran, struck the clause from the exemption form he filed for the 1954-55 tax year, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution. The tax assessor denied the requested exemption only because the oath had not been signed. The appellant sought relief in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, which found the relevant section of the California statute invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case along with that of Daniel Prince, another veteran denied exemption under similar circumstances.
In a decision reflecting the opinion of six members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brennan held that the California statute's requirement of a loyaltyoath violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because itplaced the burden of proof on the individual. Justice Black concurred, stating that the First Amendment prohibited California from imposing a tax on belief and expression. Justice Douglas concurred with Justice Black, noting that the Constitution prohibits government from monitoring thought. Justice Clark dissented, and Chief Justice Warren did not participate in the decision.
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has struggled with questions relating to free speech. In the period immediately following World War I, anti-sedition laws that criminalized anti-government speech were rigorously enforced and resulted in numerous convictions. Between 1919 and 1920, the Court heard six of these cases. In Schenck v. United States (1919) the Court reliedon common law analysis to determine the boundaries between protected and proscribed speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his majority opinion, established that prohibited speech must present "a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." This became the standard judicial test for determining whether speech should be permitted or restricted.
In the next several years, the Court heard many cases involving aspects of national and state loyalty and security measures. In Dennis v. United States, the Court ruled that advocating the overthrow of the government in itself was not sufficient to warrant conviction unless it included not only "clear and present danger" but also incitement to action. The next year, the Courtin Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), threw out a state loyalty law in Oklahoma that created "guilt by association." After the appointment of Earl Warrenas Chief Justice in 1953, the Court began to move more quickly to identify the limits of criminal speech and to respond to what the majority on the Courtconsidered excesses in prosecuting dissent. According to Paul L. Murphy in The Constitution in Crisis Times, the chief justice believed that the Court's role was "an active course in the pursuit of social justice" through "vigorous statutory interpretation, with an eye to bringing the operation of American legal institutions into harmony with professed American ideals." TheCourt did not want to deprive the legislative branch of the power to protectsociety from subversion, but it did act to moderate the extremes of such lawsby focusing on procedural questions.
The Burden of Proof
In Speiser v. Randall, the state of California argued that its statutedenied benefits only to those whose speech would be considered criminal by First Amendment standards and by the definitions arrived at by the Supreme Court. But the Court ruled that this was not the central issue. "[W]e assume without deciding," Justice Brennan wrote, "that California may deny tax exemptions to persons who engage in the proscribed speech for which they might be fined or imprisoned." Instead, the Court focused on the matter of due process--the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution. Whether the veteran's speech was criminal or not, the Court reasoned, the California statute requiring the loyalty oath unjustly imposed the burden of proof on the appellant."Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty," the Court noted,"unless the Government has borne the burden of producing the evidence and convincing the factfinder of his guilt."
Shifting the burden of proof was particularly dangerous in this case, the Court ruled, because the speech in question fell close to the line distinguishing between protected and criminal speech. This created the danger that mistaken factfinding could end up inadvertently penalizing legitimate speech. A person burdened with the task of proving himself innocent, the Court reasoned, "must steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the State must bear these burdens," and this could, in effect, create self-censorship that would deprivethe individual of his or her right to speak freely.
Though the majority opinion emphasized the due process analysis, Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, issued a separate concurring opinion focusing on the importance of protecting free speech. He viewed the California statuteas an example of "how dangerously far we have departed from the fundamental principles of freedom declared in the First Amendment" and called the case anexample of the Communist witch-hunt mentality still gripping the country at the time.
Justice Clark's Dissent
Justice Clark dissented from the majority opinion. He did not agree that dueprocess required the state of California to assume the burden of proof in this case. Furthermore, he noted that the law did not inhibit individuals' rightto speak as they might wish, pointing out that the state would not take action against those who refused to sign the oath, but would simply not take anybeneficial action for them. He concluded that "Refusal of the taxing sovereign's grace in order to avoid subsidizing or encouraging activity contrary to the sovereign's policy is an accepted practice."
Impact
The Speiser decision clarified that, though the Smith Act made it illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthrow of thegovernment, individuals have the constitutional right to be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty. It also established that the guarantee ofdue process under the law protects individuals from the burden of having toprove their innocence. In a subsequent case, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966), which involved membership in a radical organization, the Court cited theSpeiser decision when it declared "to presume that one who joins a subversive organization shares its illegal aims is forbidden--the state may notcompel a citizen to prove that he has not engaged in criminal advocacy." Andin Baird v. State Bar of Arizona (1971), the Court decided in favor ofa bar applicant who claimed she had been denied admission based on her membership in the Communist Party. This case established that political beliefs ormemberships cannot be used as the basis for refusing vocational licenses.
This does not mean, however, that the Court banned all loyalty oaths. In fact, loyalty statutes for public employees are still on the books in many statesand, though challenges to such laws have sometimes succeeded, the Court in other cases has upheld these statutes. For example, in Connell v. Higgenbotham (1971), the Court invalidated a loyalty oath in Florida because it called for the summary dismissal of an employee who refused to sign it withoutgiving the employee an opportunity to explain the refusal. But in Cole v.Richardson (1972), the Court upheld a loyalty oath.
Speiser also confirmed due process guarantees. For example, in Smith v. California, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bookstore owner who had been convicted of obscenity charges by having, on the store premises, atitle deemed obscene. Using the analysis articulated in Speiser, theCourt noted that the laws could not be applied "in a manner tending to causeeven a self-imposed restriction of free expression." In its focus on due process, the Speiser case typified the general movement of the Warren Court toward more liberal interpretations of constitutional safeguards for individuals.
Confronted with a Congress that was hunting down alleged Communist Party members and passing harsh legislation against those it considered subversive (theImmunity Act of 1954, for example, allowed Congressional committees to obtain a federal judicial order compelling a witness to testify, despite the FifthAmendment's guarantee of immunity, if the matter involved national security), the Supreme Court acted to counter the erosion of guaranteed individual rights. This strong role, in the opinion of some scholars, set the stage for civil rights activism in other areas, culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Related Cases
Lawrence Speiser
Appellee
Justin A. Randall, as Assessor of Contra Costa County, California
Appellant's Claim
That the California law denying property-tax exemption to veterans who refuseto sign a loyalty oath violates the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Lawrence Speiser
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
George W. McClure
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), HaroldBurton, William O. Douglas
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark (Earl Warren did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
30 June 1958
Decision
Reversed the lower court's decision and upheld appellant's claim that the California law denying property-tax exemption to veterans who refuse to sign a loyalty oath violates the Constitution.
Significance
The ruling confirmed the types of speech protected under the First Amendment,and found that statutory provisions that force an individual to prove he isnot engaged in criminal activities violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After World War II, the spread of Communism in Eastern Europe and Asia influenced both foreign and domestic policy in the United States. Measures to defend the country against the influence of communist agitators led to intense conflicts in the area of free speech and association. Communist Party members were prosecuted under the Smith Act (the Alien Registration Act of 1940), whichmade it illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government or to belong toany organization that held such beliefs. Loyalty oaths were required of manyjob applicants, and persons who belonged to the Communist Party or other groups considered subversive were often fired. Such activities, defendants argued, were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment's guaranteeof freedom of speech. As Congress and the states passed anti-subversive legislation, the courts engaged in complex deliberations over the limits and protections of free speech.
Punishing Subversive Ideas
The state of California passed a law in 1954 requiring that a property-tax exemption for veterans be denied to anyone refusing to sign an oath of loyaltythat stated "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the UnitedStates or 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 event of hostilities." The appellant, an honorably discharged World War II veteran, struck the clause from the exemption form he filed for the 1954-55 tax year, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution. The tax assessor denied the requested exemption only because the oath had not been signed. The appellant sought relief in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, which found the relevant section of the California statute invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case along with that of Daniel Prince, another veteran denied exemption under similar circumstances.
In a decision reflecting the opinion of six members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brennan held that the California statute's requirement of a loyaltyoath violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because itplaced the burden of proof on the individual. Justice Black concurred, stating that the First Amendment prohibited California from imposing a tax on belief and expression. Justice Douglas concurred with Justice Black, noting that the Constitution prohibits government from monitoring thought. Justice Clark dissented, and Chief Justice Warren did not participate in the decision.
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has struggled with questions relating to free speech. In the period immediately following World War I, anti-sedition laws that criminalized anti-government speech were rigorously enforced and resulted in numerous convictions. Between 1919 and 1920, the Court heard six of these cases. In Schenck v. United States (1919) the Court reliedon common law analysis to determine the boundaries between protected and proscribed speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his majority opinion, established that prohibited speech must present "a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." This became the standard judicial test for determining whether speech should be permitted or restricted.
In the next several years, the Court heard many cases involving aspects of national and state loyalty and security measures. In Dennis v. United States, the Court ruled that advocating the overthrow of the government in itself was not sufficient to warrant conviction unless it included not only "clear and present danger" but also incitement to action. The next year, the Courtin Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), threw out a state loyalty law in Oklahoma that created "guilt by association." After the appointment of Earl Warrenas Chief Justice in 1953, the Court began to move more quickly to identify the limits of criminal speech and to respond to what the majority on the Courtconsidered excesses in prosecuting dissent. According to Paul L. Murphy in The Constitution in Crisis Times, the chief justice believed that the Court's role was "an active course in the pursuit of social justice" through "vigorous statutory interpretation, with an eye to bringing the operation of American legal institutions into harmony with professed American ideals." TheCourt did not want to deprive the legislative branch of the power to protectsociety from subversion, but it did act to moderate the extremes of such lawsby focusing on procedural questions.
The Burden of Proof
In Speiser v. Randall, the state of California argued that its statutedenied benefits only to those whose speech would be considered criminal by First Amendment standards and by the definitions arrived at by the Supreme Court. But the Court ruled that this was not the central issue. "[W]e assume without deciding," Justice Brennan wrote, "that California may deny tax exemptions to persons who engage in the proscribed speech for which they might be fined or imprisoned." Instead, the Court focused on the matter of due process--the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution. Whether the veteran's speech was criminal or not, the Court reasoned, the California statute requiring the loyalty oath unjustly imposed the burden of proof on the appellant."Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty," the Court noted,"unless the Government has borne the burden of producing the evidence and convincing the factfinder of his guilt."
Shifting the burden of proof was particularly dangerous in this case, the Court ruled, because the speech in question fell close to the line distinguishing between protected and criminal speech. This created the danger that mistaken factfinding could end up inadvertently penalizing legitimate speech. A person burdened with the task of proving himself innocent, the Court reasoned, "must steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the State must bear these burdens," and this could, in effect, create self-censorship that would deprivethe individual of his or her right to speak freely.
Though the majority opinion emphasized the due process analysis, Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, issued a separate concurring opinion focusing on the importance of protecting free speech. He viewed the California statuteas an example of "how dangerously far we have departed from the fundamental principles of freedom declared in the First Amendment" and called the case anexample of the Communist witch-hunt mentality still gripping the country at the time.
Justice Clark's Dissent
Justice Clark dissented from the majority opinion. He did not agree that dueprocess required the state of California to assume the burden of proof in this case. Furthermore, he noted that the law did not inhibit individuals' rightto speak as they might wish, pointing out that the state would not take action against those who refused to sign the oath, but would simply not take anybeneficial action for them. He concluded that "Refusal of the taxing sovereign's grace in order to avoid subsidizing or encouraging activity contrary to the sovereign's policy is an accepted practice."
Impact
The Speiser decision clarified that, though the Smith Act made it illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthrow of thegovernment, individuals have the constitutional right to be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty. It also established that the guarantee ofdue process under the law protects individuals from the burden of having toprove their innocence. In a subsequent case, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966), which involved membership in a radical organization, the Court cited theSpeiser decision when it declared "to presume that one who joins a subversive organization shares its illegal aims is forbidden--the state may notcompel a citizen to prove that he has not engaged in criminal advocacy." Andin Baird v. State Bar of Arizona (1971), the Court decided in favor ofa bar applicant who claimed she had been denied admission based on her membership in the Communist Party. This case established that political beliefs ormemberships cannot be used as the basis for refusing vocational licenses.
This does not mean, however, that the Court banned all loyalty oaths. In fact, loyalty statutes for public employees are still on the books in many statesand, though challenges to such laws have sometimes succeeded, the Court in other cases has upheld these statutes. For example, in Connell v. Higgenbotham (1971), the Court invalidated a loyalty oath in Florida because it called for the summary dismissal of an employee who refused to sign it withoutgiving the employee an opportunity to explain the refusal. But in Cole v.Richardson (1972), the Court upheld a loyalty oath.
Speiser also confirmed due process guarantees. For example, in Smith v. California, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bookstore owner who had been convicted of obscenity charges by having, on the store premises, atitle deemed obscene. Using the analysis articulated in Speiser, theCourt noted that the laws could not be applied "in a manner tending to causeeven a self-imposed restriction of free expression." In its focus on due process, the Speiser case typified the general movement of the Warren Court toward more liberal interpretations of constitutional safeguards for individuals.
Confronted with a Congress that was hunting down alleged Communist Party members and passing harsh legislation against those it considered subversive (theImmunity Act of 1954, for example, allowed Congressional committees to obtain a federal judicial order compelling a witness to testify, despite the FifthAmendment's guarantee of immunity, if the matter involved national security), the Supreme Court acted to counter the erosion of guaranteed individual rights. This strong role, in the opinion of some scholars, set the stage for civil rights activism in other areas, culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Related Cases
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
- Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
- Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952).
- Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966).
- Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971).
- Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971).
- Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972).
User Comments Add a comment…