Watkins Vs Watkins

Case: John Watkins v. United States (1957)
Facts: John Thomas Watkins, a labor worker organizer, was asked in 1954 to appear in front of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. He was asked to give further details on the identity and expose the Communist Party member’s activities and he refused. Court ruled that the congress possessed no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.
Issue: Did the activities by HUAC incorporate an unconstitutional use of congressional power?
Holding: (Vote: 6-1) No. The statute is unconstitutional because congress possesses no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals and the HUAC were exceeded the scope of congressional power because
they did not have a legitimate justification for the inquires.
Majority Reasoning: Chief Justice Earl Warren
A. Rule: The HUAC, as a whole institution, has the authority to make investigations on
(1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, he diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
B. Application: Here in this case the HUAC failed to justify and to explain why this information would be relevant to the major investigation.
Concurrence 1: (Frankfurter) Agreed with the committee overstepping the boundaries, however he did not believe that the petitioner’s guilt should not been in question.
Dissent 1: Clark
A. He concluded that Watkins was properly questioned about the matters at hand and that the committee was legitimately within the scope of their powers.
B.
He stated that it is sometimes unfair that congress abuses but stated that it was not the Supreme Court’s concern.
C. Stated that Watkins was in no way trying to protect his rights under the 5th amendment but was covering up the actions of his previous associates. Since Watkins already admitted his own participation in the issue, he should have not been allowed to exercise his rights.
D. The majority opinion did not appreciate the actual way in which congressional committees operated.
Principles of the Law: Congress of the United States does not have the authority to involve themselves in the private affairs of individuals without probable justification.
Perspective: The implications of this court ruling states that the Congress has limit authority to violate the rights of individuals even when it comes to investigations regarding the welfare of the country. The court ended up ruling a year later, on similar case, Barenblatt v. United States. On this particular case the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had not violated any rights and thus upheld Barenblatt’s original conviction. The difference between this case, although Barenblatt was not a Communist Activist, he was promoting and discussing theories and studying
Communism.