Aptheker v. Secretary of State
Aptheker v. Secretary of State is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutional rights of individuals associated with the Communist Party, particularly regarding their ability to travel abroad. In this 1964 decision, the Court struck down a provision of the McCarran Act that required members of subversive organizations to register with the government, deeming it overly broad and a violation of the right to travel. This ruling underscored the importance of individual freedoms, particularly in the context of political affiliations and personal liberties. The Court's ruling highlighted concerns about government overreach and the implications of labeling individuals based solely on their association with politically controversial groups. By emphasizing that the right to travel is valuable, the decision set a precedent for protecting civil liberties against broad governmental restrictions. Overall, Aptheker v. Secretary of State reflects ongoing tensions in American society regarding national security, political dissent, and the balance between individual rights and government authority.
Aptheker v. Secretary of State
Date: June 22, 1964
Citation: 378 U.S. 500
Issue: Freedom of association; right to travel
Significance: In this case, one of a series that undermined 1950’s anticommunist legislation, the Supreme Court overturned the communist registration provision in the 1950 McCarran Act.
A six-vote liberal majority on the Supreme Court voided the part of the 1950 McCarran Act requiring Communist Party members to register with the Subversive Activities Control Board. This registration provision was upheld in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1961), but the Court said it would rule on the constitutionality of the registrations only if enforcement were attempted. The government had previously tried to block the issuance of passports to communists and other subversives under the 1926 Passport Act, but this was stricken as unconstitutional in Kent v. Dulles (1958).
Writing for the Court, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg called the statute overly broad, pointing out that the right to travel outside the United States, while not absolute, was valuable and that this act banned travel for subversive organization members without regard to the purpose of their travel and whether or not they were active or knowing members of the organization.