Speiser v. Randall
Encyclopedia
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513
(1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court
case involved the State of California
's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran
of World War II
, a tax exemption
because the person refused to sign a loyalty oath
as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment
rights.
for veterans of World War II. Anyone desiring to claim the exemption was required to complete a standard form of application and submit the form with the local tax assessor.
In 1954, the form was revised to add a loyalty oath which the applicant must sign which stated "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means, nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in event of hostilities."
The appellants refused to sign the oath contending the condition of requiring the oath in order to obtain a tax exemption was unconstitutional. The assessors denied the exemption solely because the appellants had refused to execute the oath by signature. The assessors based their reasoning on Article XX, 19, of the California Constitution adopted in a general election in 1952 which includes language similar to the text of the loyalty oath.
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
.
However the Supreme Court of California
did construe the constitutional amendment as denying the tax exemption only to claimants who may be criminally punished under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act (California Statute 1919, c. 188) or the Federal Smith Act
(18 U.S.C. 2385).
The U.S. Supreme Court in its review asked a more basic questions, with the loyalty oath has California chosen a fair method to determine if a tax exemption claimant is in fact someone to whom the criminal acts specified applies. In other words, though it is reasonable to deny a claimant a tax exemption if the claimant is involved in a criminal behavior, has the state arrived at a mechanism which demonstrates the criminal behavior?
The court ruled that because the state requires the claimant to show they are not advocating state overthrow hence are not criminals within the applicable laws, the loyalty oath requirement to obtain the tax exemption is unconstitutional. The burden of proof for a criminal action rests on the state and not on the individual private citizen. In other cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of loyalty oaths requirements but those involved public officials and not private citizens.
Loyalty Oaths upheld:
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case involved the State of California
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran
Veteran
A veteran is a person who has had long service or experience in a particular occupation or field; " A veteran of ..."...
of World War II
World War II
World War II, or the Second World War , was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis...
, a tax exemption
Tax exemption
Various tax systems grant a tax exemption to certain organizations, persons, income, property or other items taxable under the system. Tax exemption may also refer to a personal allowance or specific monetary exemption which may be claimed by an individual to reduce taxable income under some...
because the person refused to sign a loyalty oath
Loyalty oath
A loyalty oath is an oath of loyalty to an organization, institution, or state of which an individual is a member.In this context, a loyalty oath is distinct from pledge or oath of allegiance...
as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
rights.
Facts
The State of California allowed a number of tax exemptions one of which was an exemption of property taxProperty tax
A property tax is an ad valorem levy on the value of property that the owner is required to pay. The tax is levied by the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which the property is located; it may be paid to a national government, a federated state or a municipality...
for veterans of World War II. Anyone desiring to claim the exemption was required to complete a standard form of application and submit the form with the local tax assessor.
In 1954, the form was revised to add a loyalty oath which the applicant must sign which stated "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means, nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in event of hostilities."
The appellants refused to sign the oath contending the condition of requiring the oath in order to obtain a tax exemption was unconstitutional. The assessors denied the exemption solely because the appellants had refused to execute the oath by signature. The assessors based their reasoning on Article XX, 19, of the California Constitution adopted in a general election in 1952 which includes language similar to the text of the loyalty oath.
Issue
Was the oath requirement a violation of the appellants' First Amendment rights as well as a violation of the due processDue process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
Decision
The appellees argued that a tax exemption is a privilege and that its denial did not infringe on free speech. The lower California courts did not agree with this contention recognizing that conditions imposed on privileges provided by the state should be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed.However the Supreme Court of California
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
did construe the constitutional amendment as denying the tax exemption only to claimants who may be criminally punished under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act (California Statute 1919, c. 188) or the Federal Smith Act
Smith Act
The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 is a United States federal statute that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S...
(18 U.S.C. 2385).
The U.S. Supreme Court in its review asked a more basic questions, with the loyalty oath has California chosen a fair method to determine if a tax exemption claimant is in fact someone to whom the criminal acts specified applies. In other words, though it is reasonable to deny a claimant a tax exemption if the claimant is involved in a criminal behavior, has the state arrived at a mechanism which demonstrates the criminal behavior?
The court ruled that because the state requires the claimant to show they are not advocating state overthrow hence are not criminals within the applicable laws, the loyalty oath requirement to obtain the tax exemption is unconstitutional. The burden of proof for a criminal action rests on the state and not on the individual private citizen. In other cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of loyalty oaths requirements but those involved public officials and not private citizens.
See also
- Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233
- Whitney v. CaliforniaWhitney v. CaliforniaWhitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society.-Facts:...
, 274 U.S. 357 - Dennis v. United StatesDennis v. United StatesDennis v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court case involving Eugene Dennis, general secretary of the Communist Party USA, which found that Dennis did not have a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to exercise free speech, publication and assembly,...
, 341 U.S. 494 - Powell v. AlabamaPowell v. AlabamaPowell v. Alabama was a United States Supreme Court decision which determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process.-Background of the case:...
, 287 U.S. 45, 71 - McFarland v. American Shugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105
- Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant...
, 384 U.S. 436
Loyalty Oaths upheld:
- Garner v. Board of Public WorksGarner v. Board of Public WorksGarner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716 , is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that a municipal loyalty oath which required an oath and affidavit about one's beliefs and actions for the previous five years and which was enacted more than five years previous is...
, 341 U.S. 716 - Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56
- American Communications Association v. DoudsAmerican Communications Association v. DoudsAmerican Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an ex...
, 339 U.S. 382- provisions by National Labor Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActThe National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in...
for loyalty oath
- provisions by National Labor Relations Act