Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF FOREIGN BORN v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD (1965)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF FOREIGN BORN v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD
Term: 1964
Important Dates
Argued: December 8, 1964
Decided: April 26, 1965
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
5-3
Majority
William BrennanTom ClarkArthur GoldbergPotter StewartEarl Warren
Dissenting
Hugo BlackWilliam DouglasJohn Harlan II

AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF FOREIGN BORN v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 1965. The case was argued before the court on December 8, 1964.

In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction).

For a full list of cases decided in the 1960s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Warren Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: First Amendment - federal or state internal security legislation: Smith, Internal Security, and related federal statutes
  • Petitioner: Political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Subversive Activities Control Board
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 380 U.S. 503
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Per curiam (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Earl Warren
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Unknown

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes