Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1965)
- Docket
- 3
- Decided
- 1965-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did the member registration requirements of the Subversive Activities Control Act violate Albertson's and Proctor’s Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination? Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice William Brennan, the Court held both that the petitioners’ claim of self-incrimination was ripe for decision and that SACA’s registration requirement for individuals violated the Fifth Amendment. Justice Brennan noted that SACA clearly implied a duty to file registration, in this case the specific form crafted by the Attorney General. He rejected the government’s argument that individuals could choose to incompletely fill out the form, asserting privilege as to some of the questions but not others. Justice Brennan reasoned that such a possibility might be constitutionally adequate if the registration was neutral on its face, but here Albertson and Proctor would be admitting to an element of a crime. Justice Brennan also rejected the government’s assertion that SACA’s immunity provision protected Albertson and Proctor from self-incrimination. He noted that SACA only provided that registration shall not constitute per se evidence of criminal guilt; thus, registration could still be used as evidence of guilt. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and set aside the Board’s orders. Justice Byron White concurred. He noted his previous objection to SACA’s registration provisions while serving as Attorney General. Justice White previously cautioned that SACA likely violated individuals’ freedom of speech, of assembly, and the privilege against self-incrimination.