Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

In the wake of World War II, the alliance between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics eroded as the Soviet Union engaged in military and political campaigns to extend its influence in Asia and Eastern Europe. This led to a resurrection of anti-Communist sentiment in the United States and the onset of the Cold War. Federal authorities waged this war in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s by investigating suspected Communists for prosecution under various laws including the Smith Act. The Smith Act had a section on sedition that penalized persons who advocated, or belonged to an organization that advocated, the destruction of the government by force.

At the same time, civil rights organizations such as the NAACP were engaged in efforts to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic quality of minorities in the United States. Such efforts resulted, for example, in the 1956 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in public schools. Opponents of desegregation and other civil rights reforms, particularly in the South, engaged in efforts to eliminate the NAACP. Some opponents tried to capitalize on the anti-Communist fever by linking Communism with the civil rights movement. Anti-Communist and anti-NAACP sentiments converged in the Gibson case.

The Gibson case originated in Florida, where the state legislature authorized a series of committees to investigate Communists and other subversive persons and organizations. These committees developed a list of alleged Communists who had acted in the state of Florida. A 1956 committee began an investigation of the Miami branch of the NAACP purportedly to determine whether it had been infiltrated by some of the alleged Communists. A 1957 committee continued this investigation by issuing a subpoena for the entire membership list of the Miami NAACP. Its members refused to produce the list on the ground that it would interfere with their First Amendment right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Florida ultimately ruled that the committee could not require production of the entire list, but could require members to bring the list to committee hearings and to testify to whether certain alleged Communists appeared on the list as members of the Miami NAACP.

The Florida Legislative Investigation Committee continued the investigation in 1959. It relied on legislation that authorized it to investigate organizations whose principles or activities

would constitute violence, or a violation of the laws of the state, or would be inimical to the well-being and orderly pursuit of their personal and business activities by the majority of citizens of this state.

Armed with this statute and the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, the committee sought to compel petitioner Theodore R. Gibson, then president of the Miami branch, to appear before it and testify on the membership list. Gibson agreed to testify from memory to whether alleged Communists named by the committee were members of the Miami NAACP, but he refused to bring or use the membership list. A trial court found Gibson to be in contempt and sentenced him to six months in prison with a $1,200 fine.

On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Gibson argued that requiring him to testify by reference to the membership list impermissibly infringed on the members' First Amendment right to freedom of association because it might discourage membership for fear of public retaliation. Gibson relied on two prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958) the state tried to require the association to file its entire membership list in order to determine the nature of its non-profit business. In Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960) the municipality tried to require the association to file its entire membership list in order to determine the applicability of certain tax license requirements. In both cases the U.S. Supreme Court decided that without a compelling state interest, compulsory production of the membership lists of this legitimate organization violated its members' First Amendment right of association.

The committee argued before the Supreme Court of Florida that it had testimony from two witnesses that certain alleged Communists also were members of the Miami NAACP. The committee believed that such testimony gave Florida a compelling interest warranting investigation of the membership list. The committee relied in particular on Uphaus v. Wyman (1959), where the Supreme Court upheld a contempt conviction for refusal to produce the guest lists of the World Federation summer camp, an organization with known ties to Communism.

The Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of the committee. It recognized that when a government investigation intrudes on a private constitutional right, the government must show a compelling need that justifies subordinating the private right to the investigation. The Court then relied on Uphaus v. Wyman to decide that the committee showed a compelling need with the evidence that alleged Communists were associated with the Miami NAACP.

The Supreme Court of Florida distinguished National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama and Bates v. City of Little Rock on the ground that the Miami NAACP did not have evidence that use of its membership list would result in social or economic retribution against its members. Further, unlike in those cases, the committee did not seek production of the entire membership list. On balance, Florida's interest in investigating Communism outweighed the slight intrusion on the First Amendment rights of the members of the NAACP.