Petitioner was convicted of a violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or
any committee thereof to refuse to answer any question "pertinent to the question under inquiry." Summoned to testify before a Subcommittee of the House of
Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities, petitioner testified freely about his own activities and associations, but he refused to answer questions as
to whether he had known certain other persons to have been members of the Communist Party. He based his refusal on the ground that those questions were
outside of the proper scope of the Committee's activities, and not relevant to its work. No clear understanding of the "question under inquiry" could be gleaned
from the resolution authorizing the full Committee, the legislative history thereof, the Committee's practices thereunder, the action authorizing the Subcommittee,
the statement of the Chairman at the opening of the hearings or his statement in response to petitioner's protest. Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair
opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Pp. 181-216 . (a) The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad, but it is not unlimited. P. 187 . (b)
Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. P. 187 . (c) No inquiry is
an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress. P. 187 . (d) The Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional
investigations, as it is to all forms of governmental action. P. 188 . (e) A congressional investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law
abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly. Pp. 196-197 . [p*179] (f) When First Amendment rights are threatened, the delegation of power to a
congressional committee must be clearly revealed in its charter. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41. P. 198 . (g) A congressional investigation into individual
affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson,
103 U.S. 168 . P. 198 . (h) It cannot simply be assumed that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights
affected, since to do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that Congress does not unjustifiably
encroach upon an individual's right of privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. Pp. 198-199 . (i) There is no congressional power to
expose for the sake of exposure where the predominant result can be only an invasion of the private rights of individuals. P. 200 . (j) In authorizing an
investigation by a committee, it is essential that the Senate or House should spell out the committee's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity to insure
that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. P. 201 . (k) The resolution authorizing the Un-American Activities Committee does
not satisfy this requirement, especially when read in the light of the practices of the Committee and subsequent actions of the House of Representatives extending
the life of the Committee. Pp. 201-205 . (l) Every reasonable indulgence of legality must be accorded to the actions of a coordinate branch of our Government,
but such deference cannot yield to an unnecessary and unreasonable dissipation of precious constitutional freedoms. P. 204 . (m) Protected freedoms should not
be placed in danger in the absence of a clear determination by the House or Senate that a particular inquiry is justified by specific legislative need. P. 205 . (n)
Congressional investigating committees are restricted to the missions delegated to them -- to acquire certain data to be used by the House or Senate in coping
with a problem that falls within its legislative sphere -- and no witness can be compelled to make disclosures on matters outside that area. P. 206 . [p*180] (o)
When the definition of jurisdictional pertinency is as uncertain and wavering as in the case of the Un-American Activities Committee, it becomes extremely
difficult for the Committee to limit its inquiries to statutory pertinency. P. 206 . (p) The courts must accord to a defendant indicted under 2 U.S.C. § 192 every
right which is guaranteed to defendants in all other criminal cases, including the right to have available information revealing the standard of criminality before the
commission of the alleged offense. Pp. 207-208 .
Back to First Amendment Surpreme Court Cases List