The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue

Whitney v. California

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Charlotte Anita Whitney, a founding member of the Communist Labor Party of California, was prosecuted under California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act for helping to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. Whitney argued that she had not intended the organization to act this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives. She claimed the California law violated the First Amendment. 

Questions

  1. Did the Criminal Syndicalism Act violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusions

  1. In a unanimous decision, the Court sustained Whitney's conviction and held that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The Court found that the Act violated neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses, and that freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was not an absolute right. The Court held that the state, in exercise of its police power, can punish those who abuse their rights to freedom of speech "by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow." In other words, words with a "bad tendency" can be punished.

    Writing a separate concurrence, Justice Louis Brandeis, joined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, argued that restrictions on government action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not extend to situations in which speech creates a clear and present danger of an evil outcome. The actions that the defendant took posed only a remote potential harm to the public, and she was involved only in contributing to the preparation of the actions. To satisfy the clear and present danger standard, the risk of harm must be severe, probable, and imminent. Broad statements advocating for revolution at some indefinite date in the future are protected by the First Amendment. 

    Justices Brandeis and Holmes concurred rather than dissented because the record showed evidence of a criminal conspiracy, which meant review was inappropriate without proof that constitutional rights were infringed during the criminal trial.