Albertson v. Millard, No. 384
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; BLACK; DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 97 L.Ed. 983,345 U.S. 242,73 S.Ct. 600 |
| Parties | ALBERTSON et al. v. MILLARD, Attorney General et al |
| Docket Number | No. 384 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1953 |
v.
MILLARD, Attorney General et al.
Mr. Ernest Goodman, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.
Mr. Edmund E. Shepherd, Lansing, Mich., for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
On april 17, 1952, the Governor of Michigan signed the Michigan Communist Control Bill. On April 22, 1952, the Communist Party of Michigan and William Albertson, its Executive Secretary, filed a complaint in the United
Page 243
States District Court or the Eastern District of Michigan. Sections 2—5, inclusive, and Section 7 of the Act were alleged to violate various provisions of the Federal Constitution. A declaratory judgment to that effect was sought, along with an injunction to prevent state officials and officers from enforcing the Act. A three-judge District Court, 106 F.Supp. 635, found the Act constitutional and an appeal was taken to this Court.
Section 5 of the Act requires the registration of Communists, the Communist Party and Communist front organizations, and Section 7 prevents them from appearing on any ballot in the State. 'Communist,' 'Communist Party,' and 'Communist front organization' are given a statutory meaning by the Michigan Legislature.1 Mich. Acts 1952, No. 117.
Page 244
These definitions are challenged by the appellants as void for vagueness. The definition of a Communist as '* * * a member of the communist party, notwithstanding the fact that he may not pay dues to, or hold a card in, said party * * *' is said to be vague since once dues and cards are eliminated as criteria there are no readily apparent means of determining who is a member. As to the definition of the Communist Party as an organization '* * * substantially directed, dominated or controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or its satellities' it is contended there are no standards as to what is a 'satellite.' In regard to the definition of both Communist Party and Communist front organization as an organization which '* * * in any manner advocates, or acts to further, the world communist movement' appellants point to the failure to define the 'world communist movement' as creating vagueness. The answers given to these and possibly other problems of construction and interpretation arising under the definitions in Sections 2—4 will determine the ultimate scope of the Act.
Interpretation of state legislation is primarily the function of state authorities, judicial and administrative. The construction given to a state statute by the state courts is binding upon federal courts. There has been no interpretation of this statute by the state courts. The absence of such construction stems from the fact this action in federal court was commenced only five days after the statute became law.
There is pending in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan, a bill seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional, both on federal and state
Page...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Weakley, No. 1712-SD
...Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 1944, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Albertson v. Millard, Attorney General of Michigan, 1953, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. The Pullman case, supra, involved civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in connection with an order by the Texa......
-
Clark v. Valeo, No. 76-1825
...1411-1412 (1943); when that question implicates a statute construction of which is the task of another tribunal; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. 983 (1953); Federation of Labor v. McAdory, supra note 72, 325 U.S. at 460, 65 S.Ct. at 1389, 89 L.Ed. at 1733-1734; Ne......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...70 S.Ct. 640, 94 L.Ed. 877; Stefanelli v. Minard, 1951, 342 U.S. 117, 120-123, 72 S.Ct. 118, 96 L.Ed. 138; Albertson v. Millard, 1953, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. 983; Doud v. Hodge, 1956, 350 U.S. 485, 76 S.Ct. 491, 100 L.Ed. 577; Beasley v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 191 U.S. 492, 2......
-
Bryan v. Austin, Civ. A. 5792.
...question is so clear that it should be construed by us and that we should decide all of the issues. In the case of Albertson v. Millard, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 602, 97 L.Ed. 983, the issues were equally clear and free from ambiguity. The appellants challenged the definitions in the act......
-
Romero v. Weakley, No. 1712-SD
...Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 1944, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Albertson v. Millard, Attorney General of Michigan, 1953, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. The Pullman case, supra, involved civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in connection with an order by the Texa......
-
Clark v. Valeo, No. 76-1825
...1411-1412 (1943); when that question implicates a statute construction of which is the task of another tribunal; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. 983 (1953); Federation of Labor v. McAdory, supra note 72, 325 U.S. at 460, 65 S.Ct. at 1389, 89 L.Ed. at 1733-1734; Ne......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...70 S.Ct. 640, 94 L.Ed. 877; Stefanelli v. Minard, 1951, 342 U.S. 117, 120-123, 72 S.Ct. 118, 96 L.Ed. 138; Albertson v. Millard, 1953, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 97 L.Ed. 983; Doud v. Hodge, 1956, 350 U.S. 485, 76 S.Ct. 491, 100 L.Ed. 577; Beasley v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 191 U.S. 492, 2......
-
Bryan v. Austin, Civ. A. 5792.
...question is so clear that it should be construed by us and that we should decide all of the issues. In the case of Albertson v. Millard, 345 U.S. 242, 73 S.Ct. 600, 602, 97 L.Ed. 983, the issues were equally clear and free from ambiguity. The appellants challenged the definitions in the act......