*1
75
George
Anderson,
Searls,
B.
B.
Mrs. Lee
Petitioner,
WEINSTOCK,
Attorneys,
Keuch,
Louis
and Mr. Robert L.
Department
Justice,
Messrs.
v.
of
and
Peter
Hana-
Charles F. Dirlam and
P.
CONTROL
ACTIVITIES
SUBVERSIVE
Respondent.
BOARD,
gan, Attorneys,
Activities
Subversive
brief,
Board,
sub-
on the
were
Control
No. 13422.
respondent.
mitted on the
for
brief
Appeals
States Court of
United
City,
Ennis,
York
Mr. Edward J.
New
of Columbia Circuit.
District
American Civil
a
on
of
filed
brief
behalf
3,
Submitted Oct.
1962.
Union,
curiae.
as amicus
Liberties
17,
Decided Dec.
1963.
Pretty-
Judge,
Before
Chief
Bazelon,
Judge,
Circuit
Senior
and Dana
man,
Judge.
her, Circuit
Judge.
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit
petition
This is a
for review of an or
der o'f the Subversive Activities Control
Day
requiring
May
Board
the United
register
Committee to
as a Communist-
organization
front
of
under Section 7
the
Activities
Act of
Subversive
Control
1950.1The
order
issued on
Board’s
was
April 27, 1956,
subsequent
and
to the
filing
petition
court, upon
of the
in this
stipulation
parties,
was
the
the case
of
abeyance pending
held in
outcome of
the
Party proceedings.
the Communist
The
finally
latter
of
were
resolved in June
1961.2 Thereafter
this court ordered
filing
scheduling of
the
of
and the
briefs
arguments
present
in
oral
the
case. Pe
3
titioner
not
asked that
the Committee
peti-
required
on
of
No brief was filed
behalf
be
to file a brief but
that
the
request
Mr. Reuben Ter-
On
of
court
tioner.
consider the brief
filed in
com
a
City,
ris,
panion case,
the
New York
of the bar of
American Committee
for
York,
Foreign
Appeals
the case
of
of New
Born
Court
Protection of
v. Subver
Board,
as
on the
was treated
submitted
brief
decided
sive Activities Control
by petitioner
date,4
“only
American
as
filed
Committee
this
as its
insofar
brief
Foreign
any points
Bom in No.
for Protection of
are
of Constitutional Law
Brooklyn,
Ralph
Powe,
request
15960. Mr.
E.
raised therein.”
This
was em
peti-
1962,
Y.,
appearance
motion,
12,
for
N.
entered an
in
March
bodied
a
filed
tioner.
which
recited:
further
Maroney, Attorney,
“Only
questions
De-
T.
Mr. Kevin
Constitutional
Justice,
partment
by
Mr.
with whom
in
of
can be raised
the Petitioner
Counsel,
Jr.,
any
might
Hunter,
Frank R.
General
that
filed on his
brief
be
Board,
by any attorney
Mr.
he
Subversive Activities Control
behalf
whom
by
amended,
993,
petition
3.
was
§
1.
as
50 U.S.C.
The
for
review
filed
64 Stat.
Intervenor,”
Weinstock,
on be-
Louis
“as
786.
appears
organization,
half of
and he
the
Party
v.
2.
of United States
Communist
petitioner
as
in this court.
Board,
Control
367
Subversive Activities
1,
1357,
U.S.App.D.C.
-,
L.Ed.2d 625
4. 117
F.2d
U.S.
81
6
331
53
S.Ct.
(1961).
(1963).
*2
76
The
afford to retain.
Petition-
the
could
front violates
my
first amendment. See
any
dissenting
opinion
not
er does
desire to have
facts
in American Com-
by
testimony
Court,
Foreign
this
or
reviewed
for
mittee
Protection of
Born
willing
Board,
is
his case on the
v.
but
to rést
Subversive Activities Control
by
questions
U.S.App.D.C. -,
raised
117
Constitutional
the other prosecuting are which decided And I believe appeals.” process that litigation their due does not demand re- Party’s of the in status the Accordingly request granted. The was present organiza- (a) case because the petitioner this is the court seek- before by Party’s tion here affected the status ing to have the Board’s order set aside substantially has been found to be con- grounds. on constitutional by Party, (b) Party trolled gued the the ar- Supreme in the The Court Communist question the of its status in a 14- registration Party case, supra, held the 14,000-page hearing month and the Su- to be features of the statute constitu- preme Court affirmed the Board’s find- applied to a tional when Communist-ac- ing, (c) there is and no that indication organization. in tion This court held organization by the Party’s affected the here Brig- Veterans the Abraham Lincoln of produce status could evidence ade v. Subversive Activities Control light would throw which additional on Board, today,5 opinion decided that the petitioner argues that matter.1 The no Party in the Communist encom- case question. other I therefore to af- vote passes applied the statute to Com- when firm. organizations. munist-front that In in must held view the statute be valid Accordingly the at case bar. the Board’s
order is
Affirmed. Judge (concurring).
BAZELON, Chief
Party
v.
of United States
Communist
Board, 367
Control
Subversive Activities
1357,
1,
L.Ed.2d 625
81
6
S.Ct.
U.S.
statutory require-
(1961),
the
sustained
JEFFERSON
OF SOCIAL
SCHOOL
registration of Communist-
SCIENCE, Petitioner,
ments for
organizations
deal
did not
but
v.
action
relationship
a Com-
between
with the
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL
organization
and a Com-
munist-action
BOARD, Respondent.
ques-
organization.
munist-front
Two
No. 12876.
closely
(1)
aIs
front
arise.
tions now
Appeals
United States Court of
enough
the world Communist
related to
District of Columbia Circuit.
restricting
justify
first
to
movement
9,
Argued
1962.
Oct.
rights
of the Com-
amendment
because
Party’s support
the world
of
munist
17,
Decided Dec.
1963.
(2) Must the
movement?
Communist
Party
a Com-
question
the
is
whether
organization
re-liti-
be
munist-action
gated in a front case?
is
that if the statute
not contend
I do
application
a to
properly
its
construed
impose
peti-
upon
U.S.App.D.C.
-,
proceeding
the
a
to
5. (1963). or crim- or its members the civil tioner of the Act. inal sanctions Par whether the need not consider 1. We litigated ty’s in to be status have would