Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y. (1966)
- Docket
- 105
- Decided
- 1966-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Are the provisions requiring public servants to formally renounce Communism so overly broad and vague that they are unconstitutional? Conclusion: Yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the provisions of the New York plan were defined in such uncertain terms that they infringed upon the constitutional rights of public servants. Because the country had an interest in protecting the First Amendment rights of teachers in order for the educational system to be as free and open as possible, such overly broad and vague requirements both violated the teachers’ rights and were detrimental to the profession. The Court held that the government could only regulate First Amendment rights with “narrow specificity.” The Court also held that specific provisions of the Civil Service Law and Educational Service Law were too overly broad because they prohibit membership in the Communist Party without determining whether or not there was any specific intent to overthrow the United States government. Justice Tom C. Clark dissented and argued that the duties of a public servant allow the government to inquire into the employee’s fitness to serve in a particular position. He also argued that the provisions in question are specific to actions that “advocate, advise, or teach” the overthrow of the United States government and are not unconstitutionally vague. Justice John M. Harlan, Justice Potter Stewart, and Justice Byron R. White joined in the dissent.