Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.
Docket: 48
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; April 30, 1956; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion reviewing the judgment from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld an order from the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring the petitioner to register as a "Communist-action" organization under the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. The Act establishes a regulatory framework for such organizations, defining a world Communist movement aimed at undermining the U.S. government through various means, including violence. Section 7 mandates registration with the Attorney General for all Communist-action organizations, while Section 13 (a) obligates the Attorney General to initiate proceedings if there is reason to believe an unregistered organization fits this classification.
The Board, composed of five presidentially appointed members, conducts hearings to determine an organization's status. If deemed a Communist-action organization, it must register as per Section 13 (g), which allows for review by the Court of Appeals, with potential further review by the Supreme Court. The Attorney General petitioned the Board on November 22, 1950, to require the petitioner to register, leading to a series of unsuccessful challenges by the petitioner against the Board's authority.
The hearing, which commenced on April 23, 1951, and concluded on July 1, 1952, involved proposed findings, briefs from both parties, and oral arguments. In October 1952, the hearing panel recommended that the Board order registration. Following exceptions and further arguments, the Board issued a detailed report on April 20, 1953. This report confirmed the existence of a world Communist movement as outlined in the Act, examined the history and ties of the Communist Party of the United States to this movement, and found that the petitioner met the statutory criteria for classification as a Communist-action organization, thus ordering its registration.
Petitioner sought review from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and filed a motion for leave to present new evidence, claiming that this evidence, which emerged after the administrative proceeding, would demonstrate that the testimony of three witnesses for the Attorney General was false and unreliable. The petitioner argued that these witnesses, Crouch, Johnson, and Matusow, had a history of perjury and were under investigation by the Department of Justice, leading to their dismissal as witnesses. The government opposed the motion, asserting that reopening the case was unnecessary as the credibility issues did not pertain to the facts at issue, and maintained that the Board's findings were supported by other evidence. On December 23, 1954, the Court of Appeals denied the motion without opinion but reinforced this decision in its full opinion, emphasizing that the credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trier of fact to assess, and there was no manifest error in the Board's evaluations. The court affirmed the Board's order, upheld the validity of Section 13(e), and found the Board's findings were supported by a preponderance of evidence, although it struck certain findings regarding the purpose of secret practices and the nature of reporting to a foreign government due to insufficient evidence. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provisions.
The constitutional challenge to the Act necessitates the Court's review. Initially, the Court addresses a claim that the Court of Appeals incorrectly denied the petitioner's motion to return the case to the Board for consideration of new evidence. This non-constitutional issue must be resolved first, as a case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds if warranted by the record. The Court emphasizes that the significance of the testimony from three witnesses, despite allegations of their perjury, cannot be dismissed. Their testimonies were substantial in relation to the Board's findings, which comprised both documentary and human evidence linking to the petitioner's activities. Specifically, witness testimonies covered extensive pages in the transcript and were heavily cited in the Board's annotated report supporting its findings under Section 13 (e). The testimonies included critical assertions about the Communist Party's role as a foreign agency threatening U.S. security, reinforcing the importance of the Board's determinations. The Court stresses the necessity of upholding the integrity of the justice system and acknowledges that allegations of perjury against witnesses must be carefully considered. It concludes that due to the potential impact of the contested testimony, the case must be reversed without addressing the constitutional questions. The fair administration of justice mandates this approach.
Petitioner is granted leave to present allegations to the Board under Section 14(a) of the Act, as the basis for challenging testimony was unavailable at the conclusion of prior proceedings. The case is remanded to the Board to ensure findings are based on untainted evidence. The Board has discretion to either hold a hearing to evaluate the truth of the allegations or to expunge the discredited testimony without a hearing. Following this, the Board must reconsider its original determination based on a revised record.
Additionally, the Act defines a "Communist-action" organization as one significantly influenced by a foreign government or organization associated with the world Communist movement, which operates to promote its objectives. The criteria for determining such an organization include: alignment with foreign directives, similarity of views and policies, receipt of foreign support, sending members for foreign training, reporting to foreign entities, recognition of foreign authority by leaders and members, and operational secrecy. The definitions also include considerations of membership disclosure and allegiance priorities.
Section 14(a) of the Act allows either party to request the court for permission to present additional evidence, provided it is shown to be material. The court may then order the evidence to be presented before the Board under terms it finds appropriate. The Board has the authority to adjust its factual findings based on this new evidence and must file modified or new findings, which will be conclusive if supported by the preponderance of evidence, along with any recommendations for action. Judge Bazelon dissented, arguing that the registration requirement infringed on the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination by forcing individuals to identify themselves as Communist Party officials and list party members. The Board's report indicates it thoroughly considered all evidence, including the credibility of the Attorney General's witnesses, some of whom were deemed informers, and addressed inconsistencies in their testimonies. Ultimately, the Board found no reason to dismiss the substance of their accounts.
