Yates v. United States | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
Argued October 8–9, 1956 Decided June 17, 1957 |
||||||
Full case name | Yates, et al. v. United States | |||||
Citations | 354 U.S. 298 (more) 77 S. Ct. 1064; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1356; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 657 |
|||||
Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |||||
Holding | ||||||
The Court held that for the Smith Act to be violated, people must be encouraged to do something, rather than merely to believe in something. The Court drew a distinction between a statement of an idea and the advocacy that a certain action be taken. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. | ||||||
Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
Case opinions | ||||||
Majority | Harlan, joined by Warren, Frankfurter | |||||
Concurrence | Burton | |||||
Concur/dissent | Black, joined by Douglas | |||||
Dissent | Clark | |||||
Brennan, Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | ||||||
Laws applied | ||||||
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving free speech and congressional power. It ruled that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger."
The decision was announced on Monday, June 17, 1957, along with the related case Watkins v. United States; both were victories for the progressives, communists, and civil libertarians, and some refer to that date as "Red Monday".[1]
Contents |
Background
Fourteen people were charged with violating the Smith Act for being members of the Communist Party USA in California. The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force. Yates claimed that her party was engaged in passive actions and that any violation of the Smith Act must involve active attempts to overthrow the government.
Opinion
The Supreme Court of the United States first narrowly construed the Smith Act, stating that the term "organize" meant to form a new organization, not any subsequent organizational acts. Then, the Court drew a distinction between actual advocacy to action and mere belief. The Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.” This does not mean that actual advocacy to action is permitted - merely expression of the abstract idea. Tellingly, the Court recognized that actual "advocacy to action" circumstances would be "few and far between." In Justice Black's opinion, he wrote of the original Smith Act trials:
- "The testimony of witnesses is comparatively insignificant. Guilt or innocence may turn on what Marx or Engels or someone else wrote or advocated as much as a hundred years or more ago.[...] When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar views about government is in reality made the crucial issue, [...] prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances."
The convictions of the indicted members were reversed and the case was remanded to District Court for a retrial.
See also
References
- ^ Sabin, Arthur, In calmer times: the Supreme Court and Red Monday
External links
Works related to Yates v. United States at Wikisource