Keyishian v. Board of Regents
385 U.S. 589 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Laws that restrict First Amendment rights through vague and overly broad terms which inhibit academic freedom are unconstitutional. Furthermore, mere membership in a 'subversive' organization, without a specific intent to further its unlawful aims, is not a constitutionally permissible ground for barring public employment.
Facts:
- The University of Buffalo merged into the State University of New York (SUNY), making its faculty state employees.
- As a condition of their continued employment, SUNY faculty were required to comply with New York's loyalty program designed to eliminate 'subversive' persons from public service.
- Faculty members Harry Keyishian, Ralph Hochfield, and others were required to sign a 'Feinberg Certificate' stating they were not members of the Communist Party.
- Keyishian, Hochfield, and others refused to sign the certificate.
- Due to his refusal, Keyishian's one-year employment contract was not renewed, and other faculty members faced dismissal proceedings.
- George Starbuck, a non-faculty library employee, refused to answer a written question about his potential membership in any group advocating the forceful overthrow of the government.
- Starbuck was dismissed from his position for his refusal to answer the question.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (Keyishian et al.) brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in a three-judge United States District Court.
- The three-judge District Court held that the New York state program was constitutional.
- The appellants appealed the District Court's decision 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:
Does New York's loyalty program, which disqualifies state university employees for 'treasonable or seditious' acts or for membership in organizations advocating the overthrow of the government, violate the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and association due to unconstitutional vagueness and overbreadth?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, New York's loyalty program violates the First Amendment. The statutory scheme is unconstitutionally vague because its crucial terms, such as 'treasonable' and 'seditious,' are not defined with enough precision, forcing teachers to guess at their meaning and 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone.' This ambiguity creates a 'pall of orthodoxy over the classroom,' chilling the exercise of First Amendment freedoms vital to academic inquiry. Additionally, the provisions disqualifying employees for membership in listed 'subversive' organizations are unconstitutionally overbroad. Overruling the premise of Adler v. Board of Education, the Court held that public employment cannot be conditioned on the surrender of constitutional rights. A law that punishes mere knowing membership in an organization without requiring proof of a 'specific intent to further the unlawful aims' of that organization rests on the impermissible doctrine of 'guilt by association' and infringes on protected freedoms.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
No, New York's loyalty program does not violate the First Amendment. The majority strikes down the program based on procedures, like the certificate requirement, that were abandoned before trial, rendering the issues abstract. The Court improperly overturns the long-standing precedent of Adler v. Board of Education, which correctly recognized the state's vital interest in protecting its educational system from subversion. Teachers work in a sensitive area and the state has a right to screen them for fitness. The statutory terms are not vague, and the provision making Communist Party membership prima facie evidence of disqualification is a reasonable procedural tool, not a conclusive determination of guilt. The majority's 'broadside' decision undermines the state's right of self-preservation and its ability to ensure the integrity of its public schools.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision for academic freedom and the First Amendment, explicitly overruling the Cold War-era precedent of Adler v. Board of Education. It decisively rejects the doctrine that public employment is a 'privilege' that can be conditioned on the waiver of constitutional rights. By applying the principles of vagueness and overbreadth so forcefully in the academic context, the Court established a high bar for government regulation of speech and association for public employees, particularly educators. The ruling solidified the requirement of 'specific intent' to punish association, making it much more difficult for the government to penalize individuals based on mere membership in disfavored political groups, thereby dismantling a key legal tool of the anti-communist loyalty programs.
Unlock the full brief for Keyishian v. Board of Regents