Braden v. United States
5 L. Ed. 2d 653, 365 U.S. 431, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1649 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A congressional committee's power to investigate Communist infiltration and propaganda outweighs an individual's First Amendment rights of speech and association, even when the inquiry is connected to legitimate political activities, so long as the committee has reason to believe the witness is a Communist and the questions are pertinent to a valid legislative purpose.
Facts:
- Carl Braden was a public opponent of racial segregation and a field secretary for the Southern Conference Educational Fund.
- Braden and his wife signed and circulated a letter urging citizens to oppose pending congressional bills that would reinstate state sedition laws.
- The letter argued these state laws could be used to prosecute individuals working for racial integration in the South.
- A subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began an investigation into Communist infiltration and propaganda in the southern United States.
- The subcommittee had reason to believe that Braden was a member of the Communist Party and was engaged in its propaganda efforts.
- The subcommittee subpoenaed Braden to testify at a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia on July 30, 1958.
- During the hearing, the subcommittee asked Braden six questions, including whether he was a member of the Communist Party "the instant you affixed your signature to that letter" opposing the sedition bills.
- Braden refused to answer the questions, citing his First Amendment rights of belief and association and his understanding of recent Supreme Court decisions, but did not invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Braden was indicted in federal district court on six counts of violating 2 U.S.C. § 192 for his refusal to answer questions before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
- At trial, the district judge ruled as a matter of law that the questions were pertinent to the subcommittee's inquiry.
- A jury convicted Braden on all six counts, and he was given concurrent sentences.
- Braden appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 congressional subcommittee's inquiry into a witness's potential Communist Party membership violate the First Amendment when that inquiry is tied to the witness's constitutionally protected advocacy, such as petitioning Congress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No. The subcommittee's interrogation does not violate the First Amendment. Citing the balancing test from Barenblatt v. United States, the Court held that the government's interest in investigating Communist infiltration as a matter of self-preservation is a pervasive and compelling interest. The subcommittee had a valid legislative purpose to investigate Communist propaganda activities in the southern states. Because it had reason to believe Braden was a Communist, questions about the extent to which the Party was using legitimate causes for propaganda were pertinent and not constitutionally beyond the subcommittee's reach. The Court also held that pertinency is a question of law for the judge, not the jury, and that a witness's mistaken view of the law, based on their interpretation of prior court decisions, is not a defense to a deliberate refusal to answer.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes. The subcommittee's inquiry violates the First Amendment. This decision continues a dangerous trend of sacrificing fundamental First Amendment freedoms through a flexible balancing test that treats the Amendment as a 'mere admonition.' The investigation is a direct abridgment of the right of petition, punishing Braden for his political expression and associations. The slogan of 'self-preservation' is a premise that can destroy democracy by eroding the liberties essential to it. Liberty must be secure for all, including those with unpopular ideas, and the Court should overrule Barenblatt and return to the strict, protective language of the Bill of Rights.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The subcommittee's inquiry violates the First Amendment. Braden was entitled to rely on the protections established in Watkins v. United States, which required a congressional committee to clearly establish the pertinency of its questions before intruding upon First Amendment rights. The committee failed to lay any foundation or show a demonstrable connection between Braden's activities—which were exercises in free speech, press, and petition—and any Communist plot. The committee's questions were based on innuendo and were aimed at harassing Braden for his support of racial integration by attempting to label it as 'subversive,' rather than serving a valid legislative purpose.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the precedent set in Barenblatt v. United States, solidifying the use of a balancing test that weighs the government's interest in national security against individual First Amendment rights. It significantly curtails the protections for witnesses outlined in Watkins v. United States, making it more difficult for individuals to challenge the pertinency of a committee's questions on First Amendment grounds. The ruling establishes that participation in constitutionally protected activities does not shield a person from congressional inquiry into their associations if the committee has a basis, however slight, to suspect Communist ties, thereby granting HUAC and similar bodies broad investigatory power during the Cold War era.
