Irish Northern Aid Committee v. Attorney General of United States, No. 72-521

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
PartiesIRISH NORTHERN AID COMMITTEE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES
Docket NumberNo. 72-521
Decision Date18 December 1972

409 U.S. 1080
93 S.Ct. 679
34 L.Ed.2d 669
IRISH NORTHERN AID COMMITTEE

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES.

No. 72-521.

Supreme Court of the United States

December 18, 1972

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, dissenting.

Petitioner is registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (1970). The District Court ordered it to comply with the Act by filing, inter alia, a statement of contributions which included the names of contributors. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in an unreported order.

I believe that the Foreign Agents Registration Act does not authorize the Attorney General to require lists of the names and addresses of contributors, as he has done in 28 CFR § 5.201(e). Cf. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958). I would therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act sets out an extensive scheme to regulate the activities of foreign agents. But the scheme is not all-encompassing. Its purpose is to inform the American people of the activities of the agents of foreign principals so that the people may carefully 'appraise them and the purposes for which they act.' H.R.Rep. No. 1470, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); 1966 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2397, 2398.

Congress has determined that we must know the extent to which a foreign agent is supported by his principal so that we may properly evaluate the agent's interest in the views he presents. To that end, the statute requires the agent to disclose 'the nature and amount of contributions, income, money, or thing of value, if any, that the registrant has received . . . from each such foreign principal.' 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)(5). Prior to its amendment in 1966, the statute did require the disclosure of the name and address of 'any person who has . . . contributed or paid money or anything of

Page 1081

value to the registrant.' 56 Stat. 248, 252. This provision was omitted in 1966, leaving § 612(a)(5) as essentially the only provision requiring disclosure of contributors.1

The amendments adopted in 1966 were intended to limit the scope of the previous act and thereby to make effective enforcement more likely. In language repeated in each subsequent Committee report on the proposed revision, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations referred to its bill as 'better focusing the act on those individuals performing political or semipolitical activities.' S.Rep. No. 875, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1964).2 The Committee said, 'Too broadly written for today's needs, the present act's disclosure provisions have through the years been too narrowly enforced with the emphasis paid on subversive or potentially subversive

Page 1082

agents.' Id., at 5.3 Congress in 1966 deliberately narrowed the coverage of the statute. I would not read into it broad coverage, through a general authorization to the Attorney General, which is inconsistent with the thrust of the legislation taken as a whole.

The statute no longer requires, in terms, the disclosure of the names of all contributors.4 But the registrant must keep 'such books of account and other records with respect to all his activities, the disclosure of which is required under the provisions of this Act . . . as the Attorney General, having due regard for the national security and the public interest, may by regulation prescribe as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the Act.' 22 U.S.C. § 615. The Attorney General has apparently determined that the names and addresses of all contributors must be disclosed to insure full disclosure of contributions from the foreign principal. 28 CFR § 5.201(e). This requirement, I believe, goes beyond the bounds of the statute.

First, the Attorney General is authorized to require...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 practice notes
  • Spencer v. State, No. CR-04-2570 (Ala. Crim. App. 4/4/2008), No. CR-04-2570.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 4, 2008
    ...48 Ala. App. 401, 406-07, 265 So. 2d 185, 190, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 748, 265 So. 2d 192, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1079, 93 S.Ct. 703, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 Page 62 "`This belief that the assailant is going to use unlawful deadly physical force must be both honestly entertained and reasonable.......
  • United States v. Byrne, Crim. No. 75-773.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 12, 1976
    ...and upheld in Attorney General v. Irish Northern Aid Committee, 346 F.Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y.1972), aff'd 465 F.2d 1405, cert. denied 409 U.S. 1080, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 (N.T. 14-35). In that case, the Court found It cannot be seriously argued that the sole or dominating purpose of the......
  • Marshall v. Reinhold Const., Inc., No. 77-631-Civ-J-T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • November 17, 1977
    ...of the writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. Lance Roofing Co. v. Hodgson, 343 F.Supp. 685, 687-88 (N.D.Ga.1972), aff'd 409 U.S. 1070, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972). 4 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) provides for review of final administrative decisions in the appropriate circuit Court of Appea......
  • U.S. v. Affleck, Nos. 85-1009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1985
    ...States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1103 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Clizer, 464 F.2d 121, 123 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1080, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 B. The ex post facto clause Affleck and Kowalik both argue that application to them of the new Sec. 3143(b)(2) stan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
44 cases
  • Spencer v. State, No. CR-04-2570 (Ala. Crim. App. 4/4/2008), No. CR-04-2570.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 4, 2008
    ...48 Ala. App. 401, 406-07, 265 So. 2d 185, 190, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 748, 265 So. 2d 192, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1079, 93 S.Ct. 703, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 Page 62 "`This belief that the assailant is going to use unlawful deadly physical force must be both honestly entertained and reasonable.......
  • United States v. Byrne, Crim. No. 75-773.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 12, 1976
    ...and upheld in Attorney General v. Irish Northern Aid Committee, 346 F.Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y.1972), aff'd 465 F.2d 1405, cert. denied 409 U.S. 1080, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 (N.T. 14-35). In that case, the Court found It cannot be seriously argued that the sole or dominating purpose of the......
  • Marshall v. Reinhold Const., Inc., No. 77-631-Civ-J-T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • November 17, 1977
    ...of the writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. Lance Roofing Co. v. Hodgson, 343 F.Supp. 685, 687-88 (N.D.Ga.1972), aff'd 409 U.S. 1070, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972). 4 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) provides for review of final administrative decisions in the appropriate circuit Court of Appea......
  • U.S. v. Affleck, Nos. 85-1009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1985
    ...States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1103 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Clizer, 464 F.2d 121, 123 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1080, 93 S.Ct. 679, 34 L.Ed.2d 669 B. The ex post facto clause Affleck and Kowalik both argue that application to them of the new Sec. 3143(b)(2) stan......
  • 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