SCHNEIDER v. SMITH, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
No. 196.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12-13, 1967.—Decided January 16, 1968.
390 U.S. 17
John S. Martin, Jr., argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney and Lee B. Anderson.
Appellant, who has served on board American-flag commercial vessels in various capacities, is now qualified to act as a second assistant engineer on steam vessels. But between 1949 and 1964 he was employed in trades other than that of a merchant seaman. In October 1964 he applied to the Commandant of the Coast Guard for a validation of the permit or license which evidences his ability to act as a second assistant engineer.
Under the Magnuson Act, 64 Stat. 427,
The questionnaire, which appellant in his application was required to submit, contained the following inquiry which he answered:
“ITEM 4. Do you now advocate, or have you ever advocated, the overthrow or alteration of the Government of the United States by force or violence or by unconstitutional means?
“Answer: No.”
The questionnaire contained the following inquiries which related to his membership and participation in organizations which were on the special list of the Attorney General as authorized by Executive Order 10450, 18 Fed. Reg. 2489:
“ITEM 5. Have you ever submitted material for publication to any of the organizations listed in Item 6 below?
“Answer. No. “ITEM 6. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of, or affiliated or associated with in any way, any of the organizations set forth below? [There followed a list of more than 250 organizations.]
“Answer. Yes.
“If your answer is ‘yes,’ give full details in Item 7.
“ITEM 7. (Use this space to explain Items 1 through 6. . . . Attach a separate sheet if there is not enough space here.)
“Answer. I have been a member of many political & social organizations, including several named on this list.
“I cannot remember the names of most of them & could not be specific about any.
“To the best of my knowledge, I have not been a member or participated in the activities of any of these organizations for ten years.”
Upon receiving the questionnaire returned by the appellant, the Commandant advised him that the information was not sufficient and that answers to further interrogatories were necessary.2
Appellant thereupon brought this action for declaratory relief that the provisions of the Magnuson Act in question and the Commandant‘s actions thereunder were unconstitutional, praying that the Commandant be directed to approve his application and that he be enjoined
A three-judge court was convened and the complaint was dismissed. 263 F. Supp. 496. The case is here on appeal,
We agree, as does appellee, that the case was one to be heard by a three-judge court and that accordingly we have jurisdiction of this appeal. For appellant did raise the question as to whether the statute was unconstitutional because of vagueness and abridgment of First Amendment rights and also questioned whether the power to install a screening program was validly delegated. A three-judge court was accordingly proper. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360; Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1.
The Magnuson Act gives the President no express authority to set up a screening program for personnel on merchant vessels of the United States. As respects “any foreign-flag vessels” the power to control those who “go or remain on board” is clear.
The Regulations prescribe the standards by which the Commandant is to judge the “character and habits of life” of the employee to determine whether his “presence . . . on board” the vessel would be “inimical to the security of the United States“:
“(a) Advocacy of the overthrow or alteration of the Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
“(b) Commission of, or attempts or preparations to commit, an act of espionage, sabotage, sedition or treason, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting another to commit such an act.
“(c) Performing, or attempting to perform, duties or otherwise acting so as to serve the interests of another government to the detriment of the United States. “(d) Deliberate unauthorized disclosure of classified defense information.
“(e) Membership in, or affiliation or sympathetic association with, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons designated by the Attorney General pursuant to Executive Order 10450, as amended.” 33 CFR § 121.03.
If we assume arguendo that the Act authorizes a type of screening program directed at “membership” or “sympathetic association,” the problem raised by it and the Regulations would be kin to the one presented in Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, where a teacher to be hired by a public school of Arkansas had to submit an affidavit “listing all organizations to which he at the time belongs and to which he has belonged during the past five years.” Id., at 481.
We held that an Act touching on First Amendment rights must be narrowly drawn so that the precise evil is exposed; that an unlimited and indiscriminate search of the employee‘s past which interferes with his associational freedom is unconstitutional. Id., at 487-490.
If we gave
A saboteur on a merchant vessel may, of course, be dangerous. But no charge that appellant was a saboteur
We are loath to conclude that Congress, in its grant of authority to the President to “safeguard” vessels and waterfront facilities from “sabotage or other subversive acts,” undertook to reach into the First Amendment area. The provision of the Act in question,
The purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, unlike more recent models promoting a welfare state, was to take government off the backs of people. The First Amendment‘s ban against Congress “abridging” freedom of speech, the right peaceably to assemble and to petition, and the “associational freedom” (Shelton v. Tucker, supra, at 490) that goes with those rights create a preserve where the views of the individual are made inviolate. This is the philosophy of Jefferson that “the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction . . . . [I]t is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. . . .”4
In United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, the Court construed the statutory word “lobbying” to include only direct representation to Congress, its members, and its committees, not all activities tending to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation. Id., at 47. Such an interpretation of the statute, it was said, was “in the candid service of avoiding a serious constitutional doubt” (ibid.)—doubts that were serious “in view of the prohibition of the First Amendment.” Id., at 46.
The holding in Rumely was not novel. It is part of the stream of authority which admonishes courts to construe statutes narrowly so as to avoid constitutional questions.5
The Court said in Rumely, “Whenever constitutional limits upon the investigative power of Congress have to be drawn by this Court, it ought only to be done after Congress has demonstrated its full awareness of what is at stake by unequivocally authorizing an inquiry of dubious limits. Experience admonishes us to tread warily in this domain.” 345 U. S., at 46.
The present case involves investigation, not by Congress but by the Executive Branch, stemming from congressional delegation. When we read that delegation with an eye to First Amendment problems, we hesitate to conclude that Congress told the Executive to ferret out the ideological strays in the maritime industry. The words it used—“to safeguard . . . from sabotage or other subversive acts“—refer to actions, not to ideas or
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, while concurring in the Court‘s judgment and opinion, also agrees with the statement in MR. JUSTICE FORTAS’ concurring opinion that the statute under consideration, if construed to authorize the interrogatories involved, is offensive to the First Amendment.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court. Reversal is dictated because the interrogatories which petitioner refused to answer offend the First Amendment. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960). (They also pass the outermost bounds of reason. No agency may be permitted to require of a person, subject to heavy penalty, sworn essays as to his “attitude toward the form of Government in the United States” or “full particulars,” under oath, without time limit, as to contributions made and functions attended with respect to 250 organizations.) I agree that since Congress did not specifically authorize a personnel screening program, authority to impose procedures of the comprehensive type here involved, necessarily impinging on First Amendment freedoms, may not be inferred from dubious general language. The fault, however, is not that there was an inadequate or
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, agreeing with the separate views of MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurs in the judgment.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, concurring in the result.
I agree with the Court that the Magnuson Act did not authorize the inquiry undertaken by the Coast Guard Commandant and that therefore the judgment of the District Court must be reversed. I express no opinion as to the scope of inquiry which Congress could constitutionally provide with respect to applicants for the position of merchant seaman.