Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Elfbrandt Vs. Russell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 1966

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

64 entries 8 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  2. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  3. Gastelum-quinones Vs. Kennedy US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1963
  4. Lerner Vs. Casey US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  5. Baggett Vs. Bullitt US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1964
  6. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  7. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  8. Wieman Vs. Updegraff US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  9. U.S. 11 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  10. U.S. 11 (1966) Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  11. the oath was vacated by this Court, 378 U. S. 127 , and remanded for reconsideration in light of Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  12. with the many uncertainties found potentially punishable in Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  13. by the principle that a State may not compel a citizen to prove that he has not engaged in criminal advocacy. Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  14. which had sustained the oath (94 Ariz. 1, 381 P.2d 554) and remanded the cause for reconsideration in light of Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  15. Id. at 147-148, 397 P.2d at 949. We recognized in Scales v. United
    Search
  16. S. 229 -230). The importance of this limiting construction from a constitutional standpoint was emphasized in Noto v. United
    Search
  17. would run afoul of the Constitution was set at rest by our decision in Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  18. purports to exclude association by one who does not subscribe to the organization's unlawful ends. Here as in Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  19. Cramp v. Board
    Search
  20. impose, in effect, a conclusive presumption that the member shares the unlawful aims of the organization. See Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  21. of State, supra, at 378 U. S. 511 . The unconstitutionality of this Act follows a fortiori from Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  22. association protected by the First Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  23. of Public Instruction, supra. Cf. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  24. Gibson v. Florida
    Search
  25. U. S. 479 , 364 U. S. 488 . And see Louisiana v. NAACP
    Search
  26. U. S. 293 , 366 U. S. 296 -297. Page 384 U. S. 19 As we said in NAACP v. Button
    Search
  27. which has no place here. See Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  28. Schware v. Board
    Search
  29. Cf. Rowoldt v. Perfetto
    Search
  30. having tenure, would be entitled to a hearing before she was discharged from her teaching position. See Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  31. authorized to inquire into such affiliations and it may discharge those who refuse to affirm or deny them. Gerende v. Board
    Search
  32. Garner v. Board
    Search
  33. Adler v. Board
    Search
  34. Beilan v. Board
    Search
  35. Nelson v. County
    Search
  36. Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  37. Slochower v. Board
    Search
  38. holding membership in and lending their name and influence to those organizations aiming at violent overthrow. Adler v. Board
    Search
  39. there is no sound constitutional reason for denying the State the power to treat such false swearing as perjury. Alire v. United
    Search
  40. Ogden v. United
    Search
  41. ed.), United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell
    Search
  42. by any illegal means necessary to achieve this end. Page 384 U. S. 22 Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  43. There is nothing in Scales v. United
    Search
  44. States, 367 U. S. 203 , Noto v. United
    Search
  45. States, 367 U. S. 290 , or Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  46. and deliberate affiliations with those organizations who conspire to destroy the government by violent means. Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  47. their vulnerability to the charge of being unconstitutionally vague. 97 Ariz. 140, 397 P.2d 944. See Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  48. American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  50. of Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial