Watkins v. United States, No. 261

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWARREN
Citation354 U.S. 178,1 L.Ed.2d 1273,77 S.Ct. 1173
Decision Date17 June 1957
Docket NumberNo. 261
PartiesJohn T. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America

354 U.S. 178
77 S.Ct. 1173
1 L.Ed.2d 1273
John T. WATKINS, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES of America.

No. 261.
Argued March 7, 1957.
Decided June 17, 1957.

[Syllabus from pages 178-181 intentionally omitted

]

Page 181

Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Sol. Gen. J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

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

This is a review by certiorari of a conviction under 2 U.S.C. § 192, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192 for 'contempt of Congress.' The misdemeanor is alleged to have been committed during a

Page 182

hearing before a congressional investigating committee. It is not the case of a truculent or contumacious witness who refuses to answer all questions or who, by boisterous or discourteous conduct, disturbs the decorum of the committee room. Petitioner was prosecuted for refusing to make certain disclosures which he asserted to be beyond the authority of the committee to demand. The controversy thus rests upon fundamental principles of the power of the Congress and the limitations upon that power. We approach the questions presented with conscious awareness of the far-reaching ramifications that can follow from a decision of this nature.

On April 29, 1954, petitioner appeared as a witness in compliance with a subpoena issued by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. The Subcommittee elicited from petitioner a description of his background in labor union activities. He had been an employee of the International Harvester Company between 1935 and 1953. During the last eleven of those years, he had been on leave of absence to serve as an official of the Farm Equipment Workers International Union, later merged into the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. He rose to the position of President of District No. 2 of the Farm Equipment Workers, a district defined geographically to include generally Canton and Rock Falls, Illinois, and Dubuque, Iowa. In 1953, petitioner joined the United Automobile Workers International Union as a labor organizer.

Petitioner's name had been mentioned by two witnesses who testified before the Committee at prior hearings. In September 1952, on Donald O. Spencer admitted having been a Communist from 1943 to 1946. He declared that he had been recruited into the Party with the endorsement and prior approval of petitioner, whom he identified as the then District Vice-President of the Farm Equip-

Page 183

ment Workers.1 Spencer also mentioned that petitioner had attended meetings at which only card-carrying Communists were admitted. A month before petitioner testified, one Walter Rumsey stated that he had been recruited into the Party by petitioner.2 Rumsey added that he had paid Party dues to, and later collected dues from, petitioner, who had assumed the name, Sam Brown. Rumsey told the Committee that he left the Party in 1944.

Petitioner answered these allegations freely and without reservation. His attitude toward the inquiry is clearly revealed from the statement he made when the questioning turned to the subject of his past conduct, associations and predilections:

'I am not now nor have I ever been a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Rumsey was wrong when he said I had recruited him into the party, that I had received his dues, that I paid dues to him, and that I had used the alias Sam Brown.

'Spencer was wrong when he termed any meetings which I attended as closed Communist Party meetings.

'I would like to make it clear that for a period of time from approximately 1942 to 1947 I cooperated with the Communist Party and participated in Communist activities to such a degree that some persons may honestly believe that I was a member of the party.

'I have made contributions upon occasions to Communist causes. I have signed petitions for Commu-

Page 184

nist causes. I attended caucuses at an FE convention at which Communist Party officials were present.

'Since I freely cooperated with the Communist Party I have no motive for making the distinction between cooperation and membership except the simple fact that it is the truth. I never carried a Communist Party card. I never accepted discipline and indeed on several occasions I opposed their position.

'In a special convention held in the summer of 1947 I led the fight for compliance with the Taft-Hartley Act by the FE-CIO International Union. This fight became so bitter that it ended any possibility of future cooperation.' 3

The character of petitioner's testimony on these matters can perhaps best be summarized by the Government's own appraisal in its brief:

'A more complete and candid statement of his past political associations and activities (treating the Communist Party for present purposes as a mere political party) can hardly be imagined. Petitioner certainly was not attempting to conceal or withhold from the Committee his own past political associations, predilections, and preferences. Furthermore, petitioner told the Committee that he was entirely willing to identify for the Committee, and answer any questions it might have concerning, 'those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party,' provided that, 'to (his) best knowledge and belief,' they still were members of the Party * * *.'4

The Subcommittee, too, was apparently satisfied with petitioner's disclosures. After some further discussion elaborating on the statement, counsel for the Committee

Page 185

turned to another aspect of Rumsey's testimony. Rumsey had identified a group of persons whom he had known as members of the Communist Party, and counsel began to read this list of names to petitioner. Petitioner stated that he did not know several of the persons. Of those whom he did know, he refused to tell whether he knew them to have been members of the Communist Party. He explained to the Subcommittee why he took such a position:

'I am not going to plead the fifth amendment, but I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your committee's activities. I will answer any questions which this committee puts to me about myself. I will also answer questions about those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party and whom I believe still are. I will not, however, answer any questions with respect to others with whom I associated in the past. I do not believe that any law in this country requires me to testify about persons who may in the past have been Communist Party members or otherwise engaged in Communist Party activity but who to my best knowledge and belief have long since removed themselves from the Communist movement.

'I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities. I may be wrong, and the committee may have this power, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to answer, I most firmly refuse to discuss the political activities of my past associates.'5

Page 186

The Chairman of the Committee submitted a report of petitioner's refusal to answer questions to the House of Representatives. H.R. Rep. No. 1579, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. The House directed the Speaker to certify the Committee's report to the United States Attorney for initiation of criminal prosecution. H. Res. 534, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.6 A seven-count indictment was returned. 7 Petitioner waived his right to jury trial and was found guilty on all counts by the court. The sentence, a fine of $100 and one year in prison, was suspended, and petitioner was placed on probation.

An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The conviction was reversed by a three-judge panel, one member dissenting. Upon rehearing en banc, the full bench affirmed the conviction with the judges of the original majority in dissent. 98 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 233 F.2d 681. We granted certio-

Page 187

rari because of the very important questions of constitutional law presented. 352 U.S. 822, 77 S.Ct. 62, 1 L.Ed.2d 46.

We start with several basic premises on which there is general agreement. The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. This was freely conceded by the Solicitor General in his argument of this case. 8 Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible.

It is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify

Page 188

fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation. This, of course, assumes that the constitutional rights of witnesses will be respected by the Congress as they are in a court of justice. The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
307 practice notes
  • United States v. Nelson, No. G78-115 CR5.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • February 15, 1980
    ...of convictions under the statute to bring an enlightened judgment to that 486 F. Supp. 494 task. Cf. Watkins v. United States, supra 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d It is argued that any deficiency in the indictments in these cases could have been cured by bill of particulars. But it......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...legislative act. Congress' power to investigate "is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative (power)." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 197, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1184, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957). Thus to the extent that the Act seeks to confer power to investigate preliminary to civil ......
  • Slevin v. City of New York, No. 79 Civ. 4524 (ADS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 15, 1982
    ...Moreover, the filing requirements do not seek "to expose" first amendment activities "for the sake of exposure," Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1185, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957), or specifically for the purpose of revealing political associations, Gibson v. Florida Le......
  • Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, Docket No. 19-1540-cv
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 3, 2019
    ...individual. See Barenblatt v. United States , 360 U.S. 109 , 79 S.Ct. 1081 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959) ; Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957). For this reason, in the remainder of this opinion we will refer to President Trump as the "Lead Plainti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
301 cases
  • United States v. Nelson, No. G78-115 CR5.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • February 15, 1980
    ...of convictions under the statute to bring an enlightened judgment to that 486 F. Supp. 494 task. Cf. Watkins v. United States, supra 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d It is argued that any deficiency in the indictments in these cases could have been cured by bill of particulars. But it......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...legislative act. Congress' power to investigate "is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative (power)." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 197, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1184, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957). Thus to the extent that the Act seeks to confer power to investigate preliminary to civil ......
  • Slevin v. City of New York, No. 79 Civ. 4524 (ADS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 15, 1982
    ...Moreover, the filing requirements do not seek "to expose" first amendment activities "for the sake of exposure," Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1185, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957), or specifically for the purpose of revealing political associations, Gibson v. Florida Le......
  • Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, Docket No. 19-1540-cv
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 3, 2019
    ...individual. See Barenblatt v. United States , 360 U.S. 109 , 79 S.Ct. 1081 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959) ; Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957). For this reason, in the remainder of this opinion we will refer to President Trump as the "Lead Plainti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 13-2, June 1960
    • June 1, 1960
    ...the 1956 cases involved claims against the 1 Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1956).2 Jencks v. U.S., 353 U.S. 657 (1957).3 Watkins v. U.S., 354 U.S. 178 (1957). On balance the 1956 civil liberties rulings of the led to charges that the Court was once again asserting itself as a super-legislatu......
  • Challenges to the Independence of Inspectors General in Robust Congressional Oversight
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy Nbr. 19-1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (The congressional power to obtain information is “broad” and “indispensable.” (citing Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 215 (1957))). It encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed laws, and “surveys of defects in our ......
  • Codifying Constitutional Norms
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-4, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...has made clear that Congress’s oversight power is not limited to investigating violations of law. See, e.g., Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957) (“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations . . . includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system......
  • OVERSIGHT RIDERS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...described in subsection (a)") (adding 28 U.S.C. [section] 1365a). (13) See infra Section I.B. (14) See, e.g., Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957) ("The power of the Congress to conduct investigations... encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as w......
  • 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