Baggett v. Bullitt
377 U.S. 360 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law requiring public employees to take an oath as a condition of employment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if its terms are so unduly vague, uncertain, and broad that individuals of common intelligence must guess at their meaning and differ as to their application.
Facts:
- In 1931, the State of Washington enacted a law requiring teachers to take an oath as a condition of employment.
- The 1931 oath required an affiant to swear to "support the constitution and laws" and to "by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the State of Washington, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States."
- In 1955, Washington passed another law, the Subversive Activities Act, requiring all state employees to swear they were not a "subversive person."
- The 1955 Act defined a "subversive person" as anyone who commits, aids in, or "advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit" any act intended to overthrow or alter the government by "revolution, force, or violence."
- The Act also declared the Communist Party to be a subversive organization.
- The University of Washington required its faculty and staff to take these oaths as a condition of employment.
- A group of approximately 64 faculty, staff, and students at the University of Washington (Appellants) faced termination or denial of employment for refusing to take the required oaths.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants, a group of university faculty, staff, and students, brought a class action suit in a three-judge federal District Court.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that two Washington state loyalty oath statutes (from 1931 and 1955) were unconstitutional, along with an injunction against their enforcement.
- The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1955 oath, finding it was not unduly vague.
- The District Court invoked the abstention doctrine for the 1931 oath, declining to rule on its constitutionality until state courts had an opportunity to interpret it.
- The District Court dismissed the appellants' action.
- The appellants appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do state statutes requiring public employees, including university faculty, to swear loyalty oaths violate the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the language of the oaths is unduly vague, uncertain, and broad?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the Washington statutes requiring loyalty oaths are unconstitutionally vague and thus violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1955 oath's definition of a "subversive person" is not susceptible to objective measurement; terms like 'abets,' 'advises,' 'teaches,' and altering the government by 'revolution' are so uncertain that people must guess at their meaning. This ambiguity could ensnare guiltless knowing behavior, such as a professor teaching a known Communist Party member, thereby chilling the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Similarly, the 1931 oath's requirement to promote 'respect for... institutions' and 'undivided allegiance' is undefined, potentially proscribing legitimate criticism of government policies or institutions. Because the oaths' uncertain meanings force employees to 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' to avoid potential prosecution, they unconstitutionally inhibit free speech.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
No, the Washington statutes are not unconstitutionally vague. The 1955 oath proscribes specific conduct related to the overthrow of the government by force or violence, using language this Court has previously found acceptable in cases like Gerende v. Board of Supervisors and similar to the Smith Act upheld in Dennis v. United States. The majority's fears that it could punish innocent academic activities are farcical hypotheticals. As for the 1931 oath, the Court should have abstained and allowed the Washington state courts the first opportunity to construe its meaning, which could have resolved the constitutional issue without federal intervention. The Court's decision to strike down both statutes is an unwarranted interference with the state's legitimate interest in ensuring the loyalty of its employees.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthened the 'void for vagueness' doctrine, particularly as it applies to laws that implicate First Amendment rights. By striking down both oaths, the Court established that loyalty requirements for public employees must be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid a 'chilling effect' on protected speech and association. The decision serves as a crucial precedent protecting academic freedom and political dissent, making it more difficult for states to use ambiguous loyalty oaths to enforce ideological conformity among public servants, especially educators. It reinforces the principle that when a law's boundaries are unclear, individuals will self-censor, leading to an inhibition of free expression that the Constitution does not permit.
Unlock the full brief for Baggett v. Bullitt