Watkins was born in July 1910 and ended his formal education in the eighth grade. At the time of his testimony he had four children and was working on behalf of the United Auto Workers (UAW) to unionize workers at a division of Firestone Tire and Rubber in Illinois. The UAW underwrote his legal expenses.[1]
Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party. Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee's jurisdiction. He said:[2]
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.
His conviction carried a fine of $1000 and a one-year suspended prison sentence. Watkins first won a 3–2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia[3] but then lost, 6–2, when that court heard the case en banc.[4] The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7, 1957 and announced its decision on June 17, 1957.
Decisionedit
The Supreme Court decided 6–1 to overturn Watkins' conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority.[2] Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question "pertinent to the question under inquiry" in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:
There are several sources that can outline the "question under inquiry" in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.
The New York Times commented: "The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless."[5]
Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to "the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion."[5]
The decision's impact was limited in that the Court limited the application of the principles it espoused in Watkins.[6][clarification needed]
^New York Times: "Court Ends his Dilemma," June 18, 1957, accessed June 16, 2012
^ abFindLaw: John Watkins v. United States 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
^New York Times: Luther A. Huston, "U.S. Court Upsets Contempt Ruling," January 27, 1956, accessed June 16, 2012
^New York Times: Luther A. Huston, "Red Cases Lead High Court's List," October 9, 1956, accessed June 16, 201
^ abNew York Times: "Inquiry Reform Seen Inevitable," June 19, 1957, accessed June 16, 2012
^Arthur J. Sabin, In Calmer Times: The Supreme Court and Red Monday (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 156
External linksedit
Text of Watkins v. United States, 354U.S. 178 (1957) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
watkins, united, states, 1957, decision, supreme, court, united, states, that, held, that, power, united, states, congress, unlimited, conducting, investigations, that, nothing, united, states, constitution, gives, authority, expose, private, affairs, individu. Watkins v United States 354 U S 178 1957 is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals Watkins v United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 7 1957Decided June 17 1957Full case nameJohn T Watkins v United StatesCitations354 U S 178 more 77 S Ct 1173 1 L Ed 2d 1273 1957 U S LEXIS 1558 76 Ohio L Abs 225Case historyPrior233 F 2d 681 D C Cir 1956 cert granted 352 U S 822 1956 HoldingWatkins was unable to determine his obligation to respond to questions posed to him and so was denied due process Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black Felix FrankfurterWilliam O Douglas Harold H BurtonTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Charles E WhittakerCase opinionsMajorityWarren joined by Black Frankfurter Douglas Harlan BrennanConcurrenceFrankfurterDissentClarkBurton and Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case Wikisource has original text related to this article Watkins v United States 354 U S 178 Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editJohn Thomas Watkins a labor union official from Rock Island Illinois was convicted of contempt of Congress a misdemeanor under 2 U S C 192 for failing to answer questions posed by members of Congress during a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un American Activities on April 29 1954 Watkins was born in July 1910 and ended his formal education in the eighth grade At the time of his testimony he had four children and was working on behalf of the United Auto Workers UAW to unionize workers at a division of Firestone Tire and Rubber in Illinois The UAW underwrote his legal expenses 1 Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee s jurisdiction He said 2 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 His conviction carried a fine of 1000 and a one year suspended prison sentence Watkins first won a 3 2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 3 but then lost 6 2 when that court heard the case en banc 4 The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7 1957 and announced its decision on June 17 1957 Decision editThe Supreme Court decided 6 1 to overturn Watkins conviction Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority 2 Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry in testifying before a Congressional committee but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision There are several sources that can outline the question under inquiry in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied The authorizing resolution the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee or even the nature of the proceedings themselves might sometimes make the topic clear This case demonstrates however that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt The New York Times commented The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless 5 Senators James Eastland and William E Jenner who played principal roles in investigating left wing activities issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion 5 The decision s impact was limited in that the Court limited the application of the principles it espoused in Watkins 6 clarification needed See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 354 List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First AmendmentReferences edit New York Times Court Ends his Dilemma June 18 1957 accessed June 16 2012 a b FindLaw John Watkins v United States 354 U S 178 1957 New York Times Luther A Huston U S Court Upsets Contempt Ruling January 27 1956 accessed June 16 2012 New York Times Luther A Huston Red Cases Lead High Court s List October 9 1956 accessed June 16 201 a b New York Times Inquiry Reform Seen Inevitable June 19 1957 accessed June 16 2012 Arthur J Sabin In Calmer Times The Supreme Court and Red Monday University of Pennsylvania Press 1999 156External links editText of Watkins v United States 354 U S 178 1957 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Watkins v United States amp oldid 1175152548, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
