 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 16, 1973 Decided January 9, 1974 | |
| Full case name | Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb |
| Citations | 414U.S.441 (more) 94 S. Ct. 656; 38L. Ed. 2d 635 |
| Holding | |
| States may not prohibit political parties from being on the ballot, if the party merely advocates violent overthrow of government as an abstract principle. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Powell, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I,XIV | |
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974), was aUnited States Supreme Court case based on theFirst Amendment to theU.S. Constitution that invalidatedIndiana's loyalty oath requirement.
The state ofIndiana, for the 1972 election, required nominees to submit a sworn oath stating that their party "does not advocate the overthrow of local, state or national government by force or violence." TheCommunist Party of Indiana refused to submit such a declaration, and as a result Indiana refused to put their candidates on the ballot. The Communist Party appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held in favor of the Communist Party. The majority opinion, authored by JusticeWilliam J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by four other Justices, stated that "a group advocating violent overthrow as abstract doctrine need not be regarded as necessarily advocating unlawful action." The court also held that "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action."
JusticeLewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a short opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by three other Justices. In his view, there is no need to decide the free speech question. Instead, he concluded that as the Indiana officials did not apply the loyalty oath requirement to theDemocratic Party and theRepublican Party, their discriminatory application of the requirement to the Communist Party violated theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Works related toCommunist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb at Wikisource