The 1950s
"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know" - Harry S. Truman
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Watkins v. United States
What year did the case take place? 1957
Who was involved in the case? John T. Watkins, and the HUAC
What was the case about? John Watkins was a labor organizer tihat ws called upon to testify in hearings conducted by the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Watkins did agree to describe his alleged connections with the Communist Party and to identify current members of the party. However, Watkins had refused to give up information concerning individuals who had left the Communist Party. Watkins was convicted of violating law that made it a crime for any person summoned as a witness by a congressional committee to refuse to answer a question that was given. The reason why Watkins had refuse to answer the questions was because he believed they were outside the scope of the Committee's activities and not relevant to its work. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found Watkins guilty, so he appealed to the Supreme Court to review his conviction.
What was the Constitutional issue involved that allowed it to be appealed to the Supreme Court? Did the activities of the House of Un-American Activities Committee constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power? was Watkins First Amendment violated and are people supposed to have a right to their own privacy and does Congress have the unlimited power to violate someone's privacy? And was Watkins Fifth Amendment violated too?
How did the Supreme Court rule? In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the activities of the HUAC were beyond the scope of congressional power. The Court held that both the authorizing resolution of the Committee and the specific statements made by the Committee to Watkins failed to limit the Committee's power. The Court found that because Watkins had not been given sufficient information describing the pertinency of the questions to the subjects under inquiry, he had not been accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment thus invalidated Watkins' conviction.
