Nostrand v. Little
| Decision Date | 22 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 571,571 |
| Parties | Howard L. NOSTRAND and Max Savelle, Appellants, v. Herbert S. LITTLE et al., Respondents |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Francis Hoague, for appellants.
John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen. of Washington, Herbert H. Fuller, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Timothy R. Malone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Appeal dismissed.
The disposition that the Court makes of the case resolves one of the questions presented by the appeal, viz., that appellants are entitled to a hearing before they can be discharged for refusing to take the oath. This was the holding below on the remand.1 58 Wash.2d 111, 132, 361 P.2d 551, 564.
Yet a remand for that purpose does not answer the other questions tendered, which concern the oath in question and First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The oath Washington demands of a teacher (Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, § 9.81.070) requires him to swear he is not a 'subversive person,' who is defined as
'* * * any person who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or any political subdivision of either of them by revolution, force, or violence; or who with knowledge that the organization is an organization as described in subsections (2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization.' (Italics added.) Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, § 9.81.010(5), as amended in 1953.
One aspect of the question the Court does not answer is akin to the one we had in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 82 S.Ct. 275, 7 L.Ed.2d 285. There we held that an oath which required a teacher to say he had never knowingly lent his 'aid' or 'support' or 'advice' or 'counsel' or 'influence' to the Communist Party was unconstitutional, because it brought or might bring into its net people who, by parallelism of conduct, might be said to have given 'aid' to the Communist Party though the cause they espoused was wholly lawful.
This oath presents the question whether one who plans to 'alter' the Government of the United States by 'revolution' or who knowingly belongs to a group that spon- sors that idea can be disqualified as a teacher. To 'alter' has been the objective of many who have proposed constitutional amendments. The idea of 'revolution' is an American concept2 that at least until recently has been greatly revered. A 'revolution' that operates through the route of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeCanio v. School Committee of Boston
...359 U.S. 535, 539, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012. See Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash.2d 111, 123, 361 P.2d 551, appeal dism. 368 U.S. 436, 82 S.Ct. 464, 7 L.Ed.2d 426. In Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 362 U.S. 1, 80 S.Ct. 527, 4 L.Ed.2d 494, a temporary county employee was discharged without......
-
Baggett v. Bullitt, 5598.
...Nostrand v. Little, 362 U.S. 474, 80 S.Ct. 840, 4 L.Ed.2d 892; Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash.2d 111, 361 P. 2d 551; Nostrand v. Little, 368 U.S. 436, 82 S.Ct. 464, 7 L.Ed.2d 426. 3Subversive Person Ineligible for Public "No subversive person, as defined in this act, shall be eligible for empl......
-
Baggett v. Bullitt, 220
...therein a subversive activity.1 On May 28, 1962, some four months after this Court's dismissal of the appeal in Nostrand v. Little, 368 U.S. 436, 82 S.Ct. 464, 7 L.Ed.2d 426, also a challenge to the 1955 oath,2 the University President, acting pursuant to directions of the Board of Regents,......
-
Elfbrandt v. Russell
...but has indicated its concern with it, Nostrand v. Little, 362 U.S. 474, 80 S.Ct. 840, 4 L.Ed.2d 892 (1960); Nostrand v. Little, 368 U.S. 436, 82 S.Ct. 464, 7 L.Ed.2d 426 (1962). See also Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash.2d 111, 361 P.2d 551 (1961).2 The legislature has chosen a curious method o......