Red Monday
"Red Monday" refers to a significant moment during the early Cold War in the United States, particularly concerning the legal landscape surrounding communism and national security. This term is often associated with a series of Supreme Court decisions in the late 1950s that shifted the judicial approach to cases involving political dissent and the rights of individuals against government actions taken in the name of national security. Notably, the Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled on key cases such as Yates v. United States, Watkins v. United States, and Sweezy v. New Hampshire, which collectively limited the application of the Smith Act and emphasized the need for concrete evidence of wrongdoing. These rulings were celebrated by civil libertarians for protecting constitutional rights and promoting academic freedom, yet they faced significant backlash from conservatives who believed the Court weakened defenses against perceived communist threats. The decisions sparked debates about congressional authority and the balance between national security and individual rights, leading to calls for judicial reform from various political factions. Overall, "Red Monday" encapsulates a critical intersection of law, politics, and civil liberties during a tense period of American history.
On this Page
Red Monday
The Event Day on which the U.S. Supreme Court passed down four rulings defending civil liberties
Date June 17, 1957
The Supreme Court aroused fierce opposition from anticommunists by limiting previously accepted invasions of civil liberties that were believed necessary for national security during the Cold War era.
The Supreme Court routinely upheld actions of Congress and the executive branch of the government taken in the name of national security during the early years of the Cold War. In Dennis v. United States (1951), for example, the Court upheld the conviction of eleven national leaders of the U.S. Communist Party for violating the 1940 Smith Act that made it a crime to advocate forceful overthrow of the government.
By the late 1950’s, however, the national mood had shifted, and people seemed less fearful of communist subversion. The composition of the Court changed with the arrival of Chief JusticeEarl Warren and associate justices John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, and Charles Whittaker. In 1957, the Court examined several appeals involving political dissent, weighing constitutional rights of defendants against national security concerns.
Four Decisions
The Court’s Yates v. United States (1957) decision overturned the conviction of fourteen leaders of the California Communist Party. The justices rejected the government’s argument that, under the Smith Act, membership in the Communist Party was sufficient evidence of conspiracy. They ruled six to one that advocating concrete action to overthrow the government, not simply expounding abstract principles, was necessary for a criminal conviction.
In another case, John T. Watkins, a labor organizer, testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) concerning his own activities but refused to name communists with whom he had been associated. In Watkins v. United States , the Court overturned his conviction, six to one, asserting that the HUAC failed to prove a legislative need for such information and ruling that Congress did not have the power to expose merely for the sake of exposing.
Sweezy v. New Hampshire reversed, in a 6-2 decision, the conviction of Paul Sweezy, who had refused to answer questions from a state attorney general concerning a lecture Sweezy had given at the University of New Hampshire, as well as queries concerning his activities in the Progressive Party in the 1948 election.
In Service v. Dulles, the Court examined John Stewart Service’s dismissal from the diplomatic corps. Service had criticized the Nationalist Chinese government while serving in China during World War II. Upon his return to the United States, he was subjected to a series of loyalty hearings; when none produced evidence justifying his dismissal, the secretary of state fired him. The Court declared this act had violated the State Department’s established procedures and unanimously ordered Service reinstated.
Impact
The Court’s four decisions won praise from civil libertarians. They especially hailed Justice Felix Frankfurter’s powerful defense of academic freedom in his concurring opinion in Sweezy. The standard of proof demanded in the Yates decision effectively ended use of the Smith Act; the Department of Justice never reindicted the California communists and no further prosecutions under that act occurred.
Conservatives complained furiously that the Court had aided communist subversion. They protested that Watkins unfairly limited the investigative powers of congressional committees, that Sweezy prevented states from protecting students from subversive teachers, and that Yates made it practically impossible to prosecute conspirators against America. The Georgia legislature called for the impeachment of Earl Warren, a demand the ultraconservative John Birch Society turned into a national movement. Legislators proposed more than one hundred bills to limit the power of the Court to review lower court decisions or rule laws unconstitutional. Despite the furor, none of the measures was passed.
Bibliography
Cray, Ed. Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Examines Red Monday decisions in the light of Warren’s career.
Lewis, Thomas T., and Richard Wilson, eds. Encyclopedia of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press, 2000. Covers major cases of the Supreme Court and discusses their significance.
Sabin, Arthur J. In Calmer Times: The Supreme Court and Red Monday. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Places the decisions in the context of decreasing fear of the menace of communism.