Barenblatt v U.S.
360 U.S. 109 (1959)
Facts
A case readdressing the HUAC committee. In 1953 the HUAC subcommittee initiated hearings to “ascertain the character, extent and objects of Communist Party activities” carried out by teachers who are the “subject to the directive and discipline of the Communist party.” One of those called to testify before the committee was Francis X. T. Crowley, who admitted being a member of a club tied to the communist party while a graduate student at the University of Michigan and named Lloyd Barenblatt as a member of the club as well. Based on the admission of Crowley, Barneblatt was subpoenaed to testify. He testified that he taught with Crowley at Michigan and that he knew Crowley, but he refused to answer five questions concerning his membership and involvement with the Communist party and Crowley’s as well. The House held him in contempt for refusing to answer the questions and he was later convicted. He later appealed to the Supreme Court and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Barenblatt contended that the legislation giving the HUAC committee authority was not definite and specific enough to give power to the committee, the charter giving the committee authority was too broad and Barenblatt could …show more content…
Additionally, the questions he was held in contempt for infringed on his First Amendment right to “expression and association.” The United States argued that in light of the Watkins decision, Congress has a clear and legitimate purpose to investigate the infiltration of the
360 U.S. 109 (1959)
Facts
A case readdressing the HUAC committee. In 1953 the HUAC subcommittee initiated hearings to “ascertain the character, extent and objects of Communist Party activities” carried out by teachers who are the “subject to the directive and discipline of the Communist party.” One of those called to testify before the committee was Francis X. T. Crowley, who admitted being a member of a club tied to the communist party while a graduate student at the University of Michigan and named Lloyd Barenblatt as a member of the club as well. Based on the admission of Crowley, Barneblatt was subpoenaed to testify. He testified that he taught with Crowley at Michigan and that he knew Crowley, but he refused to answer five questions concerning his membership and involvement with the Communist party and Crowley’s as well. The House held him in contempt for refusing to answer the questions and he was later convicted. He later appealed to the Supreme Court and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Barenblatt contended that the legislation giving the HUAC committee authority was not definite and specific enough to give power to the committee, the charter giving the committee authority was too broad and Barenblatt could …show more content…
Additionally, the questions he was held in contempt for infringed on his First Amendment right to “expression and association.” The United States argued that in light of the Watkins decision, Congress has a clear and legitimate purpose to investigate the infiltration of the