World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board

Article Id: WHEBN0033750801
Reproduction Date:

Title: Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Communist Party USA, Noto v. United States, Scales v. United States, Dennis v. United States, Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board

Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Argued November 17, 1955
Decided April 30, 1956
Full case name Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Citations 351 U.S. 115 (more)
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Frankfurter, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Burton, Harlan II
Dissent Clark, joined by Reed, Minton

The case resulted in two opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, the second of which upheld the constitutionality of the registration requirement against challenges brought under the First and Fifth Amendments.


In 1950, during the part of the Cold War that is now labeled the Second Red Scare, the United States Congress passed the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. Its findings read, in part:

"There exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide Communist organization."

The Act required any organization qualifying as either a "communist-action" organization or a "communist-front" organization to register with the

The Act also established the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Board and lower court proceedings

On November 22, 1950, the Attorney General petitioned the Subversive Activities Control Board for an order to require that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and though a three-judge panel denied a preliminary injunction, it issued a stay of Board proceedings pending appeal.[1] After the Supreme Court denied a petition for extension of the stay, the Party abandoned its lawsuit.

The Board conducted hearings regarding the Party from April 23, 1951 through July 1, 1952. After hearing testimony from twenty-two witnesses for the Attorney General and three for the Party, and reviewing 507 exhibits, the Board issued a 137-page report finding the Party was a "Communist-action" and ordering that it register.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals denied the Party's motion for leave to adduce additional evidence, which the Party had alleged would show that three witnesses for the Attorney General had committed perjury before the Board, and affirmed the Board's order.[2]

The Supreme Court's first decision

Though the Party challenged the constitutionality of the Act, the Supreme Court did not address these issues in its opinion, delivered by Justice Felix Frankfurter. It found that the Attorney General had not denied the perjury allegations, and concluded that because the three witness' testimony was not insubstantial, the record was impugned and the Board's order could not stand. The Court remanded the case to the Board "to make certain that (it) bases its findings upon untainted evidence."

Three justices dissented in an opinion by Justice Tom C. Clark, criticizing the Court for avoiding the issues that were before it on a "pretext."

Proceedings on remand

On remand, the Board denied several motions filed by the Party seeking to introduce additional evidence. The Court of Appeals also denied a motion by the party for leave to adduce additional evidence, but granted the Board permission to consider a motion by the Party regarding another of the Attorney General's witnesses who had also allegedly committed perjury. The Board granted the Party's motion, reopened the hearings, and the witness was recalled and crossexamined.

On December 18, 1956, the Board issued its 240-page Modified Report, finding that the recalled witness was credible but expunging the testimony of the other three challenged witnesses. Making new findings of fact, the Modified Report reaffirmed the Board's conclusion that the Party was a "Communist-action" organization and recommended that the Court of Appeals affirm its registration order. The Court of Appeals, however, remanded for the further production of documents regarding the recalled witness's testimony.[3]

The hearings were reopened, further documents were produced, and the Board struck additional testimony though not to the extent that the Party requested. The Board then issued its Modified Report on Second Remand, with findings of fact largely consisting of the findings contained in its first Modified Report, and again concluding that the Communist Party of the United States was a Communist-action organization, and again recommending that its order to register be affirmed. The same panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the order and denied the Party's motion for further discovery.[4]

The Supreme Court's second decision

In an opinion again delivered by Justice Frankfurter, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act's registration requirements.

First, the Court rejected the argument that the Act was an unconstitutional freedom of speech and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. Though noting that registration requirements may be invalidated on First Amendment grounds and had been by the Court in prior cases, the Court stated that the present case was different because of the seriousness of the threat that international Communism posed. The Court would not question Congress's findings regarding that threat, and would not reject its methods of dealing with it just because they might choose different methods.

Third, the Court deemed the Party's challenge under the

Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas each authored dissents, all of which each joined as well.


  1. ^ Communist Party of the United States v. McGrath, 96 F.Supp. 47.
  2. ^ Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 223 F.2d 531.
  3. ^ Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board. 102 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 254 F.2d 314.
  4. ^ 107 U.S. App. D.C. 279, 277 F.2d 78
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.