Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clark, Stewart, and White. He noted that government evidence in Smith Act prosecutions showed that race relations were a prime target of Communist infiltration efforts. Despite this, the majority opinion seemed to create a distinction between legislative power to investigate Communist infiltration of organizations and Communist activity by organizations. Justice Harlan did not think that the Supreme Court's prior decisions warranted such a distinction. Justice Harlan also believed that the majority's "substantial relation" test required an investigative committee to prove subversive activity before being allowed to investigate to find subversive activity. Justice Harlan thought such logic was faulty. He also believed that the committee's evidence of Communist membership in the Miami NAACP was a sufficient nexus to justify legislative investigation, particularly when the committee was not trying to require the Miami NAACP to produce its entire membership list.

Justice White also wrote a dissenting opinion in which he concluded that the effect of the majority's decision was to insulate from legislative inquiry the Communist Party's effective strategy of infiltrating and controlling legitimate organizations.