Bond v. Floyd
1966 U.S. LEXIS 75, 17 L. Ed. 2d 235, 385 U.S. 116 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's protection of free speech prevents a state legislature from excluding a duly elected member based on their statements criticizing government policy. Legislators must be given the widest latitude to express their views on public issues, and the constitutional oath of office cannot be used as a test of the sincerity of a member's political beliefs.
Facts:
- In June 1965, Julian Bond, a civil rights activist, was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives.
- Bond served as the Communications Director for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
- On January 6, 1966, SNCC issued a statement denouncing the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War, calling its foreign policy hypocritical, and expressing support for men who were unwilling to respond to the military draft.
- In a radio interview on the same day, Bond endorsed the SNCC statement, explaining his opposition to the war as a pacifist and criticizing the U.S. for fighting for liberties abroad that were not guaranteed to all citizens at home.
- Bond clarified in the interview and subsequent hearings that he did not advocate for illegal acts like burning draft cards, though he admired the courage of those who acted on their convictions.
- When the Georgia House of Representatives convened on January 10, 1966, it refused to administer the oath of office to Bond because of his statements.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Bond's statements, 75 members of the Georgia House of Representatives filed petitions challenging his right to be seated.
- After a special committee hearing, the full House voted 184 to 12 to exclude Bond, resolving that he could not honestly take the oath of office and should not be seated.
- Bond filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the grounds that the House's action was unconstitutional.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled against Bond, finding a rational basis for the House's conclusion that he could not sincerely take the oath.
- Bond (appellant) appealed the District Court's decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislature's refusal to seat a duly elected representative because of his statements criticizing national foreign policy and the military draft violate his right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes. The Georgia House of Representatives' disqualification of Bond violated his right of free expression under the First Amendment. The constitutional requirement that a legislator take an oath to support the Constitution does not authorize a legislative majority to test the sincerity of a duly elected representative's political beliefs. Bond's statements were protected political speech and did not constitute incitement to violate the law. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment's commitment to 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate on public issues applies with full force to legislators, who have an obligation to take positions on controversial matters to inform their constituents.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the free speech rights of elected officials, establishing that they cannot be disqualified from holding office for expressing dissenting or unpopular political views. The decision prevents legislative bodies from using membership qualifications or loyalty oaths as a pretext for political censorship against their own members. By extending the robust free debate principles from 'New York Times v. Sullivan' to legislators themselves, the Court ensured that representative government includes the freedom for officials to voice criticism of state and national policy without fear of reprisal from the legislative majority.
