Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Aptheker Vs. Secretary of State

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 1964

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

62 entries 7 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  2. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  3. Schneider Vs. State US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1939
  4. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  5. Naacp Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1959
  6. Kent Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
  7. American Communications Assn. Vs. Douds US Supreme Court · May 08, 1950
    Relied / Followed
  8. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  9. of State - 378 U.S. 500 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  10. of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  11. and abroad is an important aspect of liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  12. registration order had been upheld earlier in 1961 by this Court's decision in Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  13. the right to travel, and thereby abridges the liberty guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. I In 1958, in Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  14. Id. at 357 U. S. 130 . Two years later, in Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  15. with the liberty guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. It is a familiar and basic principle, recently reaffirmed in NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  16. NAACP v. Button
    Search
  17. Gremillion v. NAACP
    Search
  18. Schware v. Board
    Search
  19. Martin v. Struthers
    Search
  20. U. S. 147 , 308 U. S. 161 , 308 U. S. 165 . In applying this principle the Court in NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  21. supra, referred to the criteria enunciated in Shelton v. Tucker
    Search
  22. Congress under the Constitution has power to safeguard our Nation's security is obvious and unarguable. Cf. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  23. a constitutionally protected freedom. Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  24. the fact of membership in that group has been made the sole criterion for limiting the individual's freedom. In Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  25. Cf. Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  26. States, 320 U. S. 118 , 320 U. S. 136 . It was in this vein that the Court, in Schware v. Board
    Search
  27. Noto v. United
    Search
  28. Scales v. United
    Search
  29. of achieving the congressional objective Page 378 U. S. 513 of safeguarding our national security. Shelton v. Tucker
    Search
  30. U. S. 488 . The Federal Employee Loyalty Program, which was before this Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath
    Search
  31. Page 378 U. S. 514 It is relevant to note that, less than a month after the decision in Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  32. Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  33. yet here, as elsewhere, precision must be the touchstone of legislation so affecting basic freedoms, NAACP v. Button
    Search
  34. or judicially rewriting it. Scales v. United
    Search
  35. broad scope without substantial rewriting. The situation here is different from that in cases such as United States v. National
    Search
  36. we believe that the proper approach to legislation curtailing that liberty must be that adopted by this Court in NAACP v. Button
    Search
  37. U. S. 415 , and Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  38. U. S. 88 . In NAACP v. Button
    Search
  39. to take into account possible applications of the statute in other factual contexts besides that at bar. Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  40. Winters v. New
    Search
  41. Amendment freedoms, the existence of a penal statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application. Cf. Marcus v. Search
    Search
  42. For essentially the same reasons, this Court had concluded that the constitutionality of the statute in Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  43. Appellants do not question that the hearings afforded them procedural due process of law. Cf. Greene v. McElroy
    Search
  44. In Bolling v. Sharpe
    Search
  45. E.g., Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia
    Search
  46. Gibson v. Florida
    Search
  47. Bates v. City
    Search
  48. in the Smith Act. In Scales v. United
    Search
  49. than, and distinguishable from, that involved in American Communications Assn. v. Douds
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial