Elfbrandt v. Russell

Citation. 384 U.S. 11,86 S. Ct. 1238,16 L. Ed. 2d 321,1966 U.S.

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation384 U.S. 11,86 S. Ct. 1238,16 L. Ed. 2d 321,1966 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. An Arizona Act requiring all public employees to take an oath to support the state and federal Constitutions was held by the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) to be unconstitutional.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A law which restricts the type of membership that does not have “specific intent” to further the illegal aims of the organization infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. Such a law rests on the doctrine of “guilty by association” and such a law is unconstitutional.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Criminal intent must be judged strictissimi juris, for otherwise there is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of such an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful and constitutionally protected purposes, because of other and unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. An Arizona law required all public employees to take an oath to support the state and federal Constitutions. Employees who took the oath were subject to prosecution for perjury and discharge who “knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of the Communist Party.” The Petitioner, Elfbrandt (Petitioner), a teacher and a Quaker, decided that she could not, in good faith take the oath because she did not know what it meant and was not given a chance learn the extent of its scope and meaning.

Issue. Whether the Arizona Act requiring all public employees take an oath to support the state and federal Constitutions is constitutional?

Held. No. Judgment of the lower court reversed. This oath and statutory gloss suffers from constitutional infirmity. The oath subjects those who take it to criminal prosecution and discharge. Nothing in the oath, statutory gloss, or construction of the oath purports to exclude association by one who does not subscribe to the organization’s unlawful ends. Thus, the hazard of being prosecuted for knowing, but guiltless behavior is a reality. A law which applies to membership without the “specific intent” to further the illegal aims of the organization, as here, infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. Therefore, the Arizona Act requiring all public employees take an oath to support the state and federal Constitutions is not constitutional.

Dissent. Our Constitution does not require this kind of protection for the secret proselyting of government employees into the Communist Party.

Discussion. This case finds the law in question unconstitutional because it is overbroad and had the capacity to punish lawful conduct.

Create New Group