Ullman v. United States
Ullman v. United States is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the balance between individual rights and governmental authority, particularly regarding congressional investigations. The case involved a defendant, Ullman, who was compelled to testify before a grand jury investigating potential communist activities. Despite being granted transactional immunity—which protects against prosecution based on the compelled testimony—Ullman refused to cooperate, citing concerns about job security and public perception.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, upheld the Immunity Act, asserting that the protections of the Fifth Amendment pertain only to criminal prosecution and do not extend to ancillary consequences like job loss or public opinion. This ruling highlights the court's stance on the limits of self-incrimination protections and the government's right to conduct investigations in matters of national security. Dissenting opinions from Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas pointed out concerns about the implications of such a decision on individual freedoms. The case remains a key reference in discussions about civil liberties, the power of congressional investigations, and the complexities surrounding immunity in legal proceedings.
Ullman v. United States
Date: March 26, 1956
Citation: 350 U.S. 42
Issues: Immunity against self-incrimination; congressional power of investigation
Significance: The Supreme Court refused to protect those given limited immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before a grand jury investigating communist activities.
Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority, upholding the Immunity Act. A federal court acting under the Immunity Act ordered defendant Ullman to testify before a grand jury investigating communist activities that potentially endangered national security. Despite having transactional immunity from state or federal prosecution for his compelled testimony, Ullman refused to testify and was imprisoned for six months for contempt of court. On appeal, Ullman said the immunity was incomplete because he still faced potential loss of a job or union membership and public contempt. Frankfurter rejected the argument, pointing out that the Fifth Amendment protected only against criminal prosecution. Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas dissented.
