Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
"Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board" is a significant Supreme Court case from the early 1950s that examined the constitutionality of the McCarran Act. This legislation required members of the Communist Party to register with the government and provide financial disclosures, resulting in potential sanctions, including restrictions in defense-related employment. The case saw a majority of the Court, led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, uphold the registration requirements. However, dissenting opinions from other justices indicated concerns about the implications for civil liberties, particularly regarding freedom of association. Over time, subsequent rulings, such as Aptheker v. Secretary of State and Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, began to challenge and ultimately dismantle the act's enforcement provisions, culminating in the expiration of the Subversive Activities Control Board in the early 1970s. The decisions highlight the ongoing tensions in balancing national security interests with individual rights in a democratic society. This case is often referenced in discussions about governmental overreach and the rights of political dissenters.
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Date: June 5, 1961
Citation: 367 U.S. 1
Issue: Freedom of assembly and association
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the registration provisions of the McCarran Act of 1950, although it declined to rule on the constitutionality of sanctions written into the act.
A five-member majority of the Supreme Court upheld the McCarran Act of 1950, which required members of the Communist Party to register and file financial statements with the Subversive Activities Control Board, which made them subject to sanctions such as being banned from work in the defense industry. Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo L. Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., and William O. Douglas dissented. Although the Court upheld the act’s registration provisions, it declined to rule on enforcement until enforcement was attempted. This led some observers to believe that the Court might rule against the McCarran Act. In Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964), the Court ruled the denial of passports to Communist Party members to be an unconstitutional violation of the right to travel. The next year, the Court struck down the registration provisions in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1965), calling them a violation of Fifth Amendment rights as registration led to sanctions. These decisions destroyed the effectiveness of the Subversive Activities Control Board, and Congress allowed the board to expire in the early 1970’s.
