Bond v. Floyd

Citation17 L.Ed.2d 235,385 U.S. 116,87 S.Ct. 339
Decision Date05 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 87,87
PartiesJulian BOND et al., Appellants, v. James 'Sloppy' FLOYD et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., and Leonard B. Boudin, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Arthur K. Bolton, Griffin, Ga., for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether the Georgia House of Representatives may constitutionally exclude appellant Bond, a duly elected Representative, from membership because of his statements, and statements to which he subscribed, criticizing the policy of the Federal Government in Vietnam and the operation of the Selective Service laws. An understanding of the circumstances of the litigation requires a complete presentation of the events and statements which led to this appeal.

Bond, a Negro, was elected on June 15, 1965, as the Representative to the Georgia House of Representatives from the 136th House District. Of the District's 6,500 voters, approximately 6,000 are Negroes. Bond defeated his opponent, Malcolm Dean, Dean of Men at Atlanta University, also a Negro, by a vote of 2,320 to 487.

On January 6, 1966, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a civil rights organization of which Bond was then the Communications Director, issued the following statement on American policy in Vietnam and its relation to the work of civil rights organizations in this country:

'The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee has a right and a responsibility to dissent with United States foreign policy on an issue when it sees fit. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee now states its opposition to United States' involvement in Viet Nam on these grounds:

'We believe the United States government has been deceptive in its claims of concern for freedom of the Vietnamese people, just as the government has been deceptive in claiming concern for the freedom of colored people in such other countries as the Dominican Republic, the Congo, South Africa, Rhodesia and in the United States itself.

'We, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, have been involved in the black people's struggle for liberation and self-determination in this country for the past five years. Our work, particularly in the South, has taught us that the United States government has never guaranteed the freedom of oppressed citizens, and is not yet truly determined to end the rule of terror and oppression within its own borders.

'We ourselves have often been victims of violence and confinement executed by United States government officials. We recall the numerous persons who have been murdered in the South because of their efforts to secure their civil and human rights, and whose murderers have been allowed to escape penalty for their crimes.

'The murder of Samuel Young in Tuskegee, Ala., is no different than the murder of peasants in Viet Nam, for both Young and the Vietnamese sought, and are seeking, to secure the rights guaranteed them by law. In each case the United States government bears a great part of the responsibility for these deaths.

'Samuel Young was murdered because United States law is not being enforced. Vietnamese are murdered because the United States is pursuing an aggressive policy in violation of international law. The United States is no respector of persons or law when such persons or laws run counter to its needs and desires.

'We recall the indifference, suspicion and outright hostility with which our reports of violence have been met in the past by government officials.

'We know that for the most part, elections in this country, in the North as well as the South, are not free. We have seen that the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act have not yet been implemented with full federal power and sincerity.

'We question, then, the ability and even the desire of the United States government to guarantee free elections abroad. We maintain that our country's cry of 'preserve freedom in the world' is a hypocritical mask behind which it squashes liberation movements which are not bound, and refuse to be bound by the expediencies of United States cold war policies.

'We are in sympathy with, and support, the men in this country who are unwilling to respond to a military draft which would compel them to contribute their lives to United States aggression in Viet Nam in the name of the 'freedom' we find so false in this country.

'We recoil with horror at the inconsistency of a supposedly 'free' society where responsibility to freedom is equated with the responsibility to lend oneself to military aggression. We take note of the fact that 16 per cent of the draftees from this country are Negroes called on to stifle the liberation of Viet Nam, to preserve a 'democracy' which does not exist for them at home.

'We ask, where is the draft for the freedom fight in the United States?

'We therefore encourage those Americans who prefer to use their energy in building democratic forms within this country. We believe that work in the civil rights movement and with other human relations organizations is a valid alternative to the draft. We urge all Americans to seek this alternative, knowing full well that it may cost their lives—as painfully as in Viet Nam.'

On the same day that this statement was issued, Bond was interviewed by telephone by a reporter from a local radio station, and, although Bond had not participated in drafting the statement, he endorsed the statement in these words:

'Why, I endorse it, first, because I like to think of myself as a pacifist and one who opposes that war and any other war and eager and anxious to encourage people not to participate in it for any reason that they choose; and secondly, I agree with this statement because of the reason set forth in it because I think it is sorta hypocritical for us to maintain that we are fighting for liberty in other places and we are not guaranteeing liberty to citizens inside the continental United States.

'Well, I think that the fact that the United States Government fights a war in Viet Nam, I don't think that I as a second class citizen of the United States have a requirement to support that war. I think my responsibility is to oppose things that I think are wrong if they are in Viet Nam or New York, or Chicago, or Atlanta, or wherever.'

When the interviewer suggested that our involvement in Vietnam was because 'if we do not stop Communism there that it is just a question of where will we stop it next,' Bond replied:

'Oh, no, I'm not taking a stand against stopping World Communism, and I'm not taking a stand in favor of the Viet Cong. What I'm saying that is, first, that I don't believe in that war. That particular war. I'm against all war. I'm against that war in particular, and I don't think people ought to participate in it. Because I'm against war, I'm against the draft. I think that other countries in the World get along without a draft—England is one—and I don't see why we couldn't, too.

'* * * I'm not about to justify that war, because it's stopping International Communism, or whatever—you know, I just happen to have a basic disagreement with wars for whatever reason they are fought—* * * (F)ought to stop International Communism, to promote International Communism, or for whatever reason. I oppose the Viet Cong fighting in Viet Nam as much as I oppose the United States fighting in Viet Nam. I happen to live in the United States. If I lived in North Viet Nam I might not have the same sort of freedom of expression, but it happens that I live here—not there.'

The interviewer also asked Bond if he felt he could take the oath of office required by the Georgia Constitution, and Bond responded that he saw nothing inconsistent between his statements and the oath. Bond was also asked whether he would adhere to his statements if war were declared on North Vietnam and if his statements might become treasonous. He replied that he did not know 'if I'm strong enough to place myself in a position where I'd be guilty of treason.'

Before January 10, 1966, when the Georgia House of Representatives was scheduled to convene, petitions challenging Bond's right to be seated were filed by 75 House members. These petitions charged that Bond's statements gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and Georgia, violated the Selective Service laws, and tended to bring discredit and disrespect on the House. The petitions further contended that Bond's endorsement of the SNCC statement 'is totally and completely repugnant to and inconsistent with the mandatory oath prescribed by the Constitution of Georgia for a Member of the House of Representatives to take before taking his seat.' For the same reasons, the petitions asserted that Bond could not take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. When Bond appeared at the House on January 10 to be sworn in, the clerk refused to administer the oath to him until the issues raised in the challenge petitions had been decided.

Bond filed a response to the challenge petitions in which he stated his willingness to take the oath and argued that he was not unable to do so in good faith. He further argued that the challenge against his seating had been filed to deprive him of his First Amendment rights, and that the challenge was racially motivated. A special committee was appointed to report on the challenge, and a hearing was hend to determine exactly what Bond had said and the intentions with which he had said it.

At this hearing, the only testimony given against Bond was that which he himself gave the committee. Both the opponents Bond had defeated in becoming the Representative of the 136th District testified to his good character and to his loyalty to the United States. A recording of the interview which Bond had given to the reporter after the SNCC statement was played, and Bond was called to the stand for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
270 cases
  • Boling v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd., D069626
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 11 d2 Abril d2 2017
    ...569 ["petitioner was an elected official and had the right to enter the field of political controversy"]; Bond v. Floyd (1966) 385 U.S. 116, 136-137, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235.) Accordingly, common law principles of "apparent" agency or respondeat superior, which permit a third party to ......
  • Castro v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 d5 Julho d5 1970
    ...of and corrective action for an alleged grievance. It is noted that the majority in Spock quotes from Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235, the phrase, 'a call to unlawful refusal' in characterizing the letter-call to young men to refuse to be inducted. The adult action......
  • GUILFORD TRANSP. INDUSTRIES v. Wilner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 12 d4 Outubro d4 2000
    ...of the First Amendment ... is that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open." Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 136, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235 (1966). More than two centuries ago, the French philosopher, Voltaire, anticipatorily articulated the spirit of our First A......
  • Greenman v. City of Hackensack, Civ. No. 15-3274 (KM)(MAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 12 d6 Setembro d6 2020
    ...requires that legislators must be given the widest latitude to express views on issues of policy." Bond v. Floyd , 385 U.S. 116, 136-37, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235 (1966). When an elected official is speaking on matters of public concern, no authority can dictate the positions she may tak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Rucho for Minimalists
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 71-3, March 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...But still, we can agree, not cool. 117. Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2493-2502.118. Id. at 2493-2498.119. Id. at 2498-2502. 120. Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 122-23 (1966). Julian Bond, like most of the 136th House district, was Black. While Bond challenged this refusal and litigated the case all t......
  • A Case for Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens and the First Amendment
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 2-01, September 1978
    • Invalid date
    ...22. See, e.g., Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). See also Ely, supra note 1; Shaman, supra note 1. 23. Compare Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966) (political speech) with Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) (truthful advertising) and E.F. Drew an......
  • Critics of "free speech" and the uses of the past.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 12 No. 1, March 1995
    • 22 d3 Março d3 1995
    ...367 U.S. 290 (1961). (54.) E.g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina, 37 U.S. 229 (1963); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966). (55.) Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). (56.) Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. a......
  • On the Road to Garcetti: 'Unpick'erring Pickering and its Progeny
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 36-4, July 2008
    • 1 d2 Julho d2 2008
    ...test in favor of McPherson. 278 The Court further noted that the Pickering balancing test 270 Id. at 387. 271 Id. (quoting Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 136 (1966)). 272 Id. at 388 n.13. 273 Id. at 388. 274 Id. at 388–89. 275 Id. at 389. 276 Id. 277 Id. 278 Id. at 392. 1006 CAPITAL UNIVERSIT......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT