Watkins v. United States
United States Supreme Court
354 U.S. 178 (1957)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
John T. Watkins (defendant), a labor organizer for various unions since 1935, was identified as a former member of the Communist Party during a hearing before the House Un-American Activities Committee (the House committee). The House committee was formed in 1938 to prevent un-American propaganda from being distributed in the country. In 1954 Watkins was subpoenaed to appear before the House committee. During its investigation into Watkins, the House committee read names to Watkins and asked Watkins to identify known Communists. Watkins refused to identify former members of the Communist Party, arguing that those former members were no longer subject to the House committee’s investigations and that the House committee’s questions violated his First Amendment rights. The House committee reported Watkins’s refusal to testify to the attorney general for criminal prosecution, as such a refusal was a criminal misdemeanor. Watkins was found guilty of refusing to answer the House committee’s questions by the federal district court. Watkins challenged his prosecution. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed Watkins’s conviction. Upon a rehearing en banc, the full bench affirmed Watkins’s conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
Dissent (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
