No, the state cannot punish him for refusing to answer. The lawmakers gave the investigator a mission that was way too vague, like just saying 'go find bad guys' without any specifics. Because the instructions weren't clear, we have no idea if the lawmakers actually needed or wanted to know about Sweezy's lecture or his political party. Trampling on someone's freedom of speech without a clear, official reason is a violation of 'due process,' which means the government isn't treating him fairly.

No, the state was wrong, but for a slightly different reason. It's a matter of balancing what's more important: the government's desire to find potential threats or a person's freedom. Here, the freedom for a professor to teach and for a citizen to join a political party is incredibly important. The government's reason for asking these questions was based on a vague fear, which isn't a good enough reason to justify such a major invasion of a person's rights.

Yes, the state should have been able to punish him. A state has a right to protect itself from being overthrown, and that's a very important job. The Supreme Court shouldn't be telling New Hampshire how to run its own investigations. The state's need to find dangerous people is more important than Sweezy's refusal to answer some questions.

Yes, it was wrong. The Supreme Court recognized the vital role of universities and the need for academic freedom, stating that teachers and students must remain free to inquire and study. The government's questions to Sweezy went too far and didn't really relate to what they needed to know, violating his right to speak freely and to keep his political choices private without a good reason.

The Supreme Court shouldn't stop New Hampshire from investigating possible threats to the state in the way its legislature chose. The state court said the Attorney General's questions were related to the legislature's goal. We have to follow what the state court decided. The Supreme Court's decision will make it hard for states to look into threats to their security.

The questions Sweezy refused to answer about his university lecture and the Progressive Party violated his constitutional rights to privacy in his political activities and associations. For the government to take away these basic freedoms, it needs a very compelling reason. New Hampshire's claim that the Progressive Party and Sweezy's connection to it posed a threat to the state is not a strong enough reason to justify intruding on his rights. In politics, as in academics, people's thoughts and actions should generally be free from government prying. The New Hampshire court's decision must be overturned.

The "four essential freedoms" are "to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."

Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.

"Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents."

… community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait Jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new …

The fact that the State moved Republican voters out of the Sixth District en masse, based on precinct-level data, and did not examine each voter's history with care before taking that punitive action does not make its action less culpable under the First Amendment.

"[T] o the extent the Constitution recognizes any right of `academic freedom'above and beyond the First Amendment rights to which every citizen is entitled, the right inheres in the University, not in individual professors. "

Justice Frankfurter joined with a separate plurality of justices to overturn a contempt conviction entered against a guest lecturer at the University of New Hampshire, Paul Sweezy.

—state legislative investigation of university professor and his refusal to answer questions about his political associations

—a governmental enquiry into the contents of a scholar's lectures at a state university "unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression—areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread

Yes, the contempt conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The legislative resolution authorizing the investigation was excessively broad, effectively delegating to the Attorney General the power to define the scope and direction of the inquiry. Because the legislature did not make known the specific nature of the data it desired, there is no assurance that the questions Sweezy refused to answer were relevant to a legitimate legislative purpose. To allow the state to compel testimony and infringe upon fundamental rights in the areas of academic freedom and political expression, without a clear demonstration that the legislature authorized such an inquiry, constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

Yes, the contempt conviction violates the Due Process Clause because it unconstitutionally infringes upon First Amendment liberties. Rejecting the majority's focus on legislative delegation, this opinion balances the state's interest in self-preservation against the individual's rights to academic freedom and political privacy. The state's justification for intruding into the 'intellectual life of a university' and the 'inviolability of privacy belonging to a citizen’s political loyalties' is grossly inadequate. The state's interest, based on remote and speculative threats, is not sufficiently compelling to subordinate such fundamental liberties.

No, the contempt conviction does not violate the Constitution. The Court should not interfere with the internal affairs of a state government and must defer to the New Hampshire Supreme Court's determination that the Attorney General acted within his legislative mandate. The state's interest in investigating subversive activities to ensure its own protection outweighs the infringement on Sweezy's First Amendment rights. The majority's holding is based on a novel theory of legislative delegation that improperly strikes down the state's legitimate fact-finding efforts.

Yes, the state legislative inquiry infringed upon Sweezy's constitutional rights. The Court emphasized the 'four essential freedoms' of a university to determine its academic matters, and recognized the importance of academic freedom and political expression, which are areas where the government must exercise extreme caution. The investigation under the New Hampshire Subversive Activities Act was too broad and did not ensure the pertinence of the questions to the legislative purpose, thus violating Sweezy's rights to free speech and academic freedom. The Court found no sufficient connection between the questions asked and the state's interest in self-preservation against subversive activities.

The majority has denied New Hampshire the right to investigate subversive activities within its boundaries in the manner chosen by its legislature. The state court found the Attorney General's questions were pertinent to the legislative purpose. We are bound by those findings. The majority's decision will have the effect of destroying the fact-finding power of the states in this field. The state's interest in investigating subversive activities for the protection of its citizens outweighs any necessity for the protection of Sweezy's rights.

The questions Sweezy refused to answer regarding his university lecture and the Progressive Party infringed upon his constitutionally protected rights of political privacy and association. For a citizen to forego these basic liberties, the subordinating interest of the State must be compelling. The State's asserted interest in protecting against the remote, shadowy threat allegedly presented by the Progressive Party and Sweezy's relations to it is not sufficient to justify such an intrusion. In the political realm, as in the academic, thought and action are presumptively immune from inquisition by political authority. The judgment of the New Hampshire court must be reversed.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot