Barrenblat v US

Barenblatt v. United States 360 U.S. 109, (1959). Case Facts A university professor, Lloyd Barenblatt, refused to answer questions concerned with his personal political and religious beliefs during the hearings of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Along with his beliefs, Barenblatt further refused to answer questions regarding his associational activities. Found in contempt of congress for his failure to cooperate with the investigation of the committee, the case was presenting in front of the US court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, before reaching the United States Supreme Court. Legal Issue(s) and Holding Issue: Did the investigation involving Barenblatt’s affiliation with the Communist party, pursued by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, transgress his protection by the First Amendment, limiting congressional inquiries? Holding:  (5-4 Decision)  The Supreme Court held that the actions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities did not violate the First Amendment, and thus, upheld Barenblatt’s conviction for contempt of Congress. Opinions Majority opinion: (Justice Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker and Stewart) Justice Harlan states in his opinion "Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue involves a balancing of the competing private and public interests". Harlan then imposed a balance in favor of the government, and how the government obtains a wide amount of power regarding the legislation presented within the realm of communism. Although Barrenblatt claimed he never intentionally sought to overthrow the government by any means, the court continued to defer congress’s power to investigate for purposes dealing with the legislature. Dissenting Opinions: (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas) Black dissented the majority opinion on the grounds that he felt the terminology used was extremely vague. He felt that the Court’s “balancing test” regarding the First Amendment right’s provided to American citizens was not an effective way to determine the scope of freedom of speech for an individual. He states that the Court should have balanced the interests of society in “being able to join organizations, advocate causes and make political ‘mistakes’” against the limited interest of the government when it comes to making laws concerning the area of freedom of speech. Comments: Given the time period in which this case were presented, involving the end of the Vietnam War era and furthermore, concluding in the time period represented by the Cold War, I think that this case was an extremely touchy subject for the United States Government. Although I do not personally know whether or not Professor Barenblatt had any intentions on influencing communism within his lectures, I do feel that his first amendment right to freedom of speech was taken away by the accusations presented to him due to the subject matter of his lectures. Although communist control was an extremely prevalent issue regarding the United States, I feel that because Professor Barenblatt “plead the fifth”, when being questioned about personal matters, that does not automatically assume that he is trying to overthrow the US government.