Barenblatt v. United States - Further Readings
Petitioner
Lloyd Barenblatt
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That compelled testimony before Congress about Communist affiliations violates First Amendment rights.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Edward J. Ennis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Philip R. Monahan
Justices for the Court
Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Charles Evans Whittaker
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Earl Warren
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 June 1958
Decision
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his alleged past affiliation with the Communist Party.
Significance
Barenblatt marked a retreat from the Court's prior ruling that freedomof speech and association limited Congress' ability to inquire into political beliefs and affiliations.
In 1954, when he was called to testify before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), Lloyd Barenblatt had recently left hisjob as a psychology professor at Vassar College. The committee, which had been organized in the midst of the Cold War to investigate Communist infiltration of various elements of American society, was then engaged in an inquiry into the field of education, and it was interested in Barenblatt's membership ina Communist club at the University of Michigan, where he had been a graduatestudent from 1947 to 1950. Although the only evidence the subcommittee had about the club indicated that it was merely a forum for intellectual debates about political issues, HUAC considered its inquiry to be vital to national security. When Barenblatt, citing his Fifth Amendment right not be forced to incriminate himself, refused to answer the subcommittee's questions about his club activities and associations at the University of Michigan, he was convicted of contempt of Congress in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After his conviction was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Barenblatt petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, or review, of the decision against him.
Just two years earlier, in Watkins v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court had placed limits on Congress's authority to question citizens abouttheir political beliefs and associations. Congress and its committees, the Court said, were obliged to limit their inquiries to those that were pertinentto legislative functions. In that case, the subject of the inquiry had been convicted of contempt of Congress because he refused to answer HUAC's questions about others who might have had Community affiliations--to "name names," asthe procedure was known at the time. Such questions, the Court found, were unrelated to the committee's legitimate function, and John T. Watkins's conviction was overturned.
Congress responded to Watkins with attempts to counteract the Court'sown authority, and a majority of the justices apparently saw fit to retreat from the hard line they had previously taken toward HUAC. This time, when almost the same questions were asked of Lloyd Barenblatt as had been asked of John Watkins, five of the nine justices agreed that these questions were pertinent to the subcommittee's authorization to investigate Communist influences ineducation.
Government Interest in Self-Preservation Found to Outweigh First AmendmentConcerns
Whereas before HUAC, Barenblatt had relied on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, his petition for judicial review of his contempt conviction cited his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. Justice Harlan, in his opinion for the Court, now had no trouble dismissing such concerns--as well as the Court's own recent precedent.
Barenblatt has never been formally overturned. However, as the heat ofpublic sentiment against the supposed Red Menace cooled and the power of HUAC waned, the Supreme Court once again began to reverse the convictions of witnesses who proved unwilling to cooperate with sometimes intrusive congressional investigations.
Related Cases
The Hollywood Ten
The Hollywood Ten trials stand as a landmark in the history of the abuse of civil liberties. Ten screenwriters and directors--Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo--were subpoenaed before the House Un-American Activities Committee to answer questions regarding affiliation with the Communist party. Each of them refused to answer the questions on the grounds that such questions violated their First Amendment rightto privacy or a right to remain silent, regarding their political beliefs oraffiliations. The courts rejected the argument, found the ten guilty of contempt of Congress, and gave them prison sentences lasting from six months to one year and a monetary fine.
The trials created a precedent for making political belief a test of employment, blacklisting individuals accused of being Communist sympathizers by motion picture companies, radio and television broadcasters, and other firms in the industry occurred. As respected author E. B. White commented, "Ten men havebeen convicted, not of wrong-doing but of wrong thinking; that is news in this country and if I have not misread my history, it is bad news."
Sources
Knappman, Edward W., ed. Great American Trials Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1994.
Lloyd Barenblatt
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That compelled testimony before Congress about Communist affiliations violates First Amendment rights.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Edward J. Ennis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Philip R. Monahan
Justices for the Court
Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Charles Evans Whittaker
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Earl Warren
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 June 1958
Decision
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his alleged past affiliation with the Communist Party.
Significance
Barenblatt marked a retreat from the Court's prior ruling that freedomof speech and association limited Congress' ability to inquire into political beliefs and affiliations.
In 1954, when he was called to testify before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), Lloyd Barenblatt had recently left hisjob as a psychology professor at Vassar College. The committee, which had been organized in the midst of the Cold War to investigate Communist infiltration of various elements of American society, was then engaged in an inquiry into the field of education, and it was interested in Barenblatt's membership ina Communist club at the University of Michigan, where he had been a graduatestudent from 1947 to 1950. Although the only evidence the subcommittee had about the club indicated that it was merely a forum for intellectual debates about political issues, HUAC considered its inquiry to be vital to national security. When Barenblatt, citing his Fifth Amendment right not be forced to incriminate himself, refused to answer the subcommittee's questions about his club activities and associations at the University of Michigan, he was convicted of contempt of Congress in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After his conviction was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Barenblatt petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, or review, of the decision against him.
Just two years earlier, in Watkins v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court had placed limits on Congress's authority to question citizens abouttheir political beliefs and associations. Congress and its committees, the Court said, were obliged to limit their inquiries to those that were pertinentto legislative functions. In that case, the subject of the inquiry had been convicted of contempt of Congress because he refused to answer HUAC's questions about others who might have had Community affiliations--to "name names," asthe procedure was known at the time. Such questions, the Court found, were unrelated to the committee's legitimate function, and John T. Watkins's conviction was overturned.
Congress responded to Watkins with attempts to counteract the Court'sown authority, and a majority of the justices apparently saw fit to retreat from the hard line they had previously taken toward HUAC. This time, when almost the same questions were asked of Lloyd Barenblatt as had been asked of John Watkins, five of the nine justices agreed that these questions were pertinent to the subcommittee's authorization to investigate Communist influences ineducation.
Whereas before HUAC, Barenblatt had relied on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, his petition for judicial review of his contempt conviction cited his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. Justice Harlan, in his opinion for the Court, now had no trouble dismissing such concerns--as well as the Court's own recent precedent.
Undeniably, the First Amendment in some circumstances protects an individual from being compelled to disclose his associational relationships. However, protections of the First Amendment, unlike a proper claim of the privilege againstself-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, do not afford a witness the right to resist inquiry in all circumstances. Where First Amendment rights areasserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown. These principles were recognized in the Watkins Case, where, in speaking of the First Amendment in relation to congressional inquiries, we said . . . : "It is manifest that despitethe adverse effects which follow upon compelled disclosure of private matters, not all such inquiries are barred . . . "
Barenblatt has never been formally overturned. However, as the heat ofpublic sentiment against the supposed Red Menace cooled and the power of HUAC waned, the Supreme Court once again began to reverse the convictions of witnesses who proved unwilling to cooperate with sometimes intrusive congressional investigations.
Related Cases
- Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
- United States v. Shelton, 148 F.Supp. 926 (1957).
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962).
The Hollywood Ten
The Hollywood Ten trials stand as a landmark in the history of the abuse of civil liberties. Ten screenwriters and directors--Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo--were subpoenaed before the House Un-American Activities Committee to answer questions regarding affiliation with the Communist party. Each of them refused to answer the questions on the grounds that such questions violated their First Amendment rightto privacy or a right to remain silent, regarding their political beliefs oraffiliations. The courts rejected the argument, found the ten guilty of contempt of Congress, and gave them prison sentences lasting from six months to one year and a monetary fine.
The trials created a precedent for making political belief a test of employment, blacklisting individuals accused of being Communist sympathizers by motion picture companies, radio and television broadcasters, and other firms in the industry occurred. As respected author E. B. White commented, "Ten men havebeen convicted, not of wrong-doing but of wrong thinking; that is news in this country and if I have not misread my history, it is bad news."
Knappman, Edward W., ed. Great American Trials Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1994.
User Comments Add a comment…