-
1
-
-
1542551394
-
-
Note, 20 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 201
-
On April 19, 1995, a bomb exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 167. See Thomas C. Martin, Note, The Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995, 20 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 201, 201-02 (1996).
-
(1996)
The Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995
, pp. 201-202
-
-
Martin, T.C.1
-
2
-
-
1542656375
-
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. President Clinton signed the AEDPA on April 24, 1996
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. President Clinton signed the AEDPA on April 24, 1996.
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
1542656378
-
-
President's Statement on Signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 32 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 719, 721 (Apr. 29, 1996) [hereinafter President's Statement]
-
President's Statement on Signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 32 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 719, 721 (Apr. 29, 1996) [hereinafter President's Statement].
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
1542446710
-
-
104th Cong. 61
-
Counterterrorism Legislation: Hearings on S. 390 and S. 735 Before the U.S. Senate Subcomm. on Terrorism, Tech. and Gov't Info., 104th Cong. 61 (1995) (testimony of Father Sean McManus, President, Irish National Caucus) (urging U.S. Senate not to engage in the "politics of the last atrocity"). Father McManus urged Congress not to take advantage of the bombing, "the last atrocity," by trying to score political points. Id. He warned, "Destroying constitutional rights is not the way to build a memorial to the dead in Oklahoma City, nor is it the way to protect Americans from terrorism, nor is it the way to fight terrorism." Id.
-
(1995)
Counterterrorism Legislation: Hearings on S. 390 and S. 735 before the U.S. Senate Subcomm. on Terrorism, Tech. and Gov't Info.
-
-
-
5
-
-
26344437896
-
-
WALL ST. J., May 5
-
See Joseph D. McNamara, Editorial, Bombs and the Bill of Rights, WALL ST. J., May 5, 1995, at A10 (pointing out that probably none of the suggested antiterrorism legislation would have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing). The article concludes, "It would be ironic if anti-terrorist legislation helped destroy the protections of our Constitution and turned the delusions of the paranoids into reality." Id.
-
(1995)
Bombs and the Bill of Rights
-
-
McNamara, J.D.1
-
6
-
-
1542551407
-
-
note
-
See generally Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 516 (1951) (upholding convictions under the Smith Act for conspiracy to organize the Communist Party of the United States for the purpose of advocating the necessity of overthrowing the government "as speedily as circumstances would permit"); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (upholding the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II).
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
1542446711
-
-
104th Cong. 163
-
Donald M. Haines reminded Congress of this: Who on this Committee, or in this Administration, would now defend the forced removal, relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II? That action still stands as a shameful blot on our image of America as a fair country - even though that action was supported by virtually all the executive branch and congressional leaders of the day and, moreover, was popular with the voters. Terrorism in the United States: The Nature and Extent of the Threat and Possible Legislative Response: Hearings Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong. 163 (1995) [hereinafter Terrorism Hearings] (statement of Donald M. Haines, Legislative Counsel, ACLU).
-
(1995)
Terrorism in the United States: The Nature and Extent of the Threat and Possible Legislative Response: Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Comm.
-
-
-
8
-
-
1542761557
-
-
Legislative Counsel, ACLU
-
Donald M. Haines reminded Congress of this: Who on this Committee, or in this Administration, would now defend the forced removal, relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II? That action still stands as a shameful blot on our image of America as a fair country - even though that action was supported by virtually all the executive branch and congressional leaders of the day and, moreover, was popular with the voters. Terrorism in the United States: The Nature and Extent of the Threat and Possible Legislative Response: Hearings Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong. 163 (1995) [hereinafter Terrorism Hearings] (statement of Donald M. Haines, Legislative Counsel, ACLU).
-
Terrorism Hearings
-
-
Haines, D.M.1
-
9
-
-
1542656311
-
-
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (warning about irrational fears concerning Communism)
-
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (warning about irrational fears concerning Communism).
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
1542551390
-
-
109 HARV. L. REV. 2074
-
In unsettled times, "[t]he majority may be willing to accept broad, vaguely defined law enforcement powers when the minority's constitutional rights are at stake, but the tools used against 'them' today can easily be turned against 'us' tomorrow." Note, Blown Away? The Bill of Rights After Oklahoma City, 109 HARV. L. REV. 2074, 2091 (1996).
-
(1996)
Blown Away? The Bill of Rights after Oklahoma City
, pp. 2091
-
-
-
11
-
-
1542446687
-
-
supra note 7, testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies
-
See Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 163 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies).
-
Terrorism Hearings
, pp. 163
-
-
-
12
-
-
1542446653
-
-
See id.
-
See id.
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
1542446656
-
-
See President's Statement, supra note 3, at 719
-
See President's Statement, supra note 3, at 719.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
1542761481
-
-
S. 390, 104th Cong. (1995)
-
S. 390, 104th Cong. (1995).
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
1542446657
-
-
See S. 761, 104th Cong. (1995); Martin, supra note 1, at 210-19 (providing a detailed explanation of the legislative history of S. 761 and S. 735)
-
See S. 761, 104th Cong. (1995); Martin, supra note 1, at 210-19 (providing a detailed explanation of the legislative history of S. 761 and S. 735).
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
1542551335
-
-
S. 735, 104th Cong. (1995)
-
S. 735, 104th Cong. (1995).
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
1542446663
-
-
See Martin, supra note 1, at 205
-
See Martin, supra note 1, at 205.
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
1542446662
-
-
See Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996, H.R. 2703, 104th Cong.; 141 CONG. REC. H2267 (daily ed. Mar. 14, 1996) (passed 229-191); Note, supra note 9, at 2075
-
See Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996, H.R. 2703, 104th Cong.; 141 CONG. REC. H2267 (daily ed. Mar. 14, 1996) (passed 229-191); Note, supra note 9, at 2075.
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
1542656319
-
-
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996)
-
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
1542551338
-
-
Id. at 1214
-
Id. at 1214.
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
1542446655
-
-
note
-
The titles cover such areas as habeas-corpus reform, justice for victims, international terrorism prohibitions, terrorist and criminal alien removal and exclusion, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons restrictions, implementation of plastic-explosives convention, criminal-law modifications to counter terrorism, and assistance to law enforcement. See id.
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
1542761491
-
-
note
-
This discussion is not meant to be exhaustive but only to point out a few other areas addressed by the Act.
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
1542761489
-
-
note
-
See generally President's Statement, supra note 3, at 720 ("I have long sought to streamline Federal appeals for convicted criminals sentenced to the death penalty."); Martin, supra note 1, at 233-40 (discussing the proposed reform before the Act passed).
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
84865889825
-
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 101, 110 Stat. at 1217 (amending 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (1994))
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 101, 110 Stat. at 1217 (amending 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (1994)).
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
1542761570
-
-
note
-
See id. § 104(3), 110 Stat. at 1219 (amending 28 U.S.C. § 2254). This section provides that the writ may only be granted when the adjudication of the claim in state court: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law . . . or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Id.
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
1542551327
-
-
note
-
See id. § 106(b), 110 Stat. at 1220-21 (amending 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)) (requiring successive petitions to be approved by a court of appeals panel and to be based on newly discovered evidence or new constitutional rights established by the Supreme Court and retroactively applied, and further requiring for a successive habeas petition that the facts, when viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the person guilty). In Felker v. Turpin, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996), the Supreme Court considered whether § 106(b)(3)(E) was an unconstitutional restriction on the Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that "although the Act does impose new conditions on our authority to grant relief, it does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions." Id. at 2337.
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
84865903166
-
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act §§ 201-211, 110 Stat. at 1227-41
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act §§ 201-211, 110 Stat. at 1227-41.
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
84865903167
-
-
See id. § 235, 110 Stat. at 1246-47 (applying when venue has moved out of state and over 350 miles away)
-
See id. § 235, 110 Stat. at 1246-47 (applying when venue has moved out of state and over 350 miles away).
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
1542656323
-
-
note
-
See infra notes 59-105 and accompanying text The Act also criminalizes assistance to terrorist states in §§ 321-330 but those provisions are not discussed further in this Note.
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
1542761483
-
-
note
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 401, 110 Stat. at 1259-60 (establishing removal court and procedures); infra notes 106-40 and accompanying text.
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
1542446667
-
-
See infra note 131
-
See infra note 131.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
1542656324
-
-
See infra notes 135-40 and accompanying text
-
See infra notes 135-40 and accompanying text.
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
1542446668
-
-
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 581 (1951) (Black, J., dissenting)
-
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 581 (1951) (Black, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
1542446672
-
-
See id. at 4
-
See id. at 4.
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
84865893575
-
-
Sedition Act of 1918, Pub. L. No. 65-150, § 3, 40 Stat. 553, 553-54 (making it a crime to utter language intended to bring the United States government into contempt, scorn, or disrepute) (repealed 1921)
-
Sedition Act of 1918, Pub. L. No. 65-150, § 3, 40 Stat. 553, 553-54 (making it a crime to utter language intended to bring the United States government into contempt, scorn, or disrepute) (repealed 1921).
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
0009944778
-
-
Of approximately 2000 prosecutions under the Sedition Act, about 900 were convicted. See RODNEY A. SMOLLA, FREE SPEECH IN AN OPEN SOCIETY 97 (1992).
-
(1992)
Free Speech in an Open Society
, pp. 97
-
-
Smolla, R.A.1
-
40
-
-
1542761498
-
-
See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (upholding convictions for causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces based on defendants' distribution of leaflets to enlisted men opposing World War I and the draft)
-
See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (upholding convictions for causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces based on defendants' distribution of leaflets to enlisted men opposing World War I and the draft).
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
1542446671
-
-
Id. at 52
-
Id. at 52.
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
1542656329
-
-
See Rohr, supra note 35, at 7
-
See Rohr, supra note 35, at 7.
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
1542761495
-
-
See id. at 10
-
See id. at 10.
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
84865889824
-
-
See id. at 11-12 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (1982), which consolidated the 1940 statute and other sections into one statute)
-
See id. at 11-12 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (1982), which consolidated the 1940 statute and other sections into one statute).
-
-
-
-
45
-
-
1542551333
-
-
See id. at 11 (explaining how the Alien Registration Act included advocacy and organization as illegal)
-
See id. at 11 (explaining how the Alien Registration Act included advocacy and organization as illegal).
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
1542446676
-
-
See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
-
See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
1542656335
-
-
Id. at 516
-
Id. at 516.
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
1542656336
-
-
see also Rohr, supra note 35, at 58-59
-
WALTER GELLHORN, AMERICAN RIGHTS 75-77 (1960); see also Rohr, supra note 35, at 58-59.
-
(1960)
American Rights
, pp. 75-77
-
-
Gellhorn, W.1
-
49
-
-
1542656332
-
-
Dennis, 341 U.S. at 579-80 (Black, J., dissenting)
-
Dennis, 341 U.S. at 579-80 (Black, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
84865893571
-
-
Id at 580 (Black, J., dissenting). Although Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), did not overrule Dennis, it limited Dennis by holding that "[t]he essential distinction is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or in the future, rather than merely to believe in something." Id. at 324-25 (emphasis in original)
-
Id at 580 (Black, J., dissenting). Although Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), did not overrule Dennis, it limited Dennis by holding that "[t]he essential distinction is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or in the future, rather than merely to believe in something." Id. at 324-25 (emphasis in original).
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
0348197361
-
-
See LEE C. BOLLINGER, THE TOLERANT SOCIETY 94 (1986). "It is a sobering fact that even the ACLU succumbed to the rabid intolerance of the 1940s and 1950s by purging suspected Communists from its official hierarchy and by assisting the FBI in identifying 'subversives.'" Id.
-
(1986)
The Tolerant Society
, pp. 94
-
-
Bollinger, L.C.1
-
52
-
-
1542446725
-
-
See Rohr, supra note 35, at 12
-
See Rohr, supra note 35, at 12.
-
-
-
-
53
-
-
1542551353
-
-
See id at 13-14
-
See id at 13-14.
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
1542551354
-
-
See Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 4-19 (1961) (setting out the pertinent portions of the McCarran Act as amended by the Communist Control Act of 1954)
-
See Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 4-19 (1961) (setting out the pertinent portions of the McCarran Act as amended by the Communist Control Act of 1954).
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
1542446675
-
-
See id. at 103
-
See id. at 103.
-
-
-
-
56
-
-
1542656376
-
-
Id. at 159-60 (Black, J., dissenting)
-
Id. at 159-60 (Black, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
1542656334
-
-
See Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1960) (upholding the constitutionality of a clause that made the acquisition or holding of knowing membership in an organization which advocates government overthrow by force or violence a felony)
-
See Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1960) (upholding the constitutionality of a clause that made the acquisition or holding of knowing membership in an organization which advocates government overthrow by force or violence a felony).
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
1542656377
-
-
See id. at 209, 228
-
See id. at 209, 228.
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
1542761499
-
-
Id. at 274-75 n.8 (Douglas, J., dissenting) (citing GELLHORN, supra note 47, at 83)
-
Id. at 274-75 n.8 (Douglas, J., dissenting) (citing GELLHORN, supra note 47, at 83).
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
1542761506
-
-
note
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 303(a), 110 Stat. 1214, 1250-53 (amending 18 U.S.C. by adding § 2339B). Section 303(a) provides: (1) UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. - Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Id. § 303(a), 110 Stat. at 1250. "[M]aterial support or resources" is defined as "currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials." Id. § 323, 110 Stat. at 1255 (amending 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (1994)).
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
84865893573
-
-
See id. § 303(a), 110 Stat. at 1250
-
See id. § 303(a), 110 Stat. at 1250.
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
1542446719
-
-
See Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 161 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies)
-
See Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 161 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies).
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
26344470634
-
-
WASH. POST, July 11
-
The Ninth Circuit, considering the First Amendment in the deportation context, recently stated that "targeting individuals because of activities such as fundraising is impermissible unless the government can show that group members had the specific intent to pursue illegal group goals." American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 119 F.3d 1367, 1376 (9th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3523 (U.S. Jan. 30, 1998) (No. 97-1252). Although this decision was not premised on the AEDPA, it seriously questions the fundraising provision's constitutionality. See William Claiborne, New Antiterrorism Law Suffers Legal Setbacks; Appeals Court Rejects Palestinians' Deportation, WASH. POST, July 11, 1997, at A18.
-
(1997)
New Antiterrorism Law Suffers Legal Setbacks; Appeals Court Rejects Palestinians' Deportation
-
-
Claiborne, W.1
-
64
-
-
1542446687
-
-
supra note 7
-
See Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 162 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies). In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Dempsey pointed out that the AEDPA would repeal a provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A that was adopted in 1994. Section 2339A(c)(2) provides that "[a]n investigation may not be initiated or continued . . . based on activities protected by the First Amendment . . . including . . . the provision of financial support for the nonviolent political, religious, philosophical, or ideological goals or beliefs of any person or group." 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(c)(2).
-
Terrorism Hearings
, pp. 162
-
-
-
65
-
-
1542551355
-
-
See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (holding that the First Amendment protects the right of association)
-
See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (holding that the First Amendment protects the right of association).
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
1542446683
-
-
424 U.S. 1 (1976)
-
424 U.S. 1 (1976).
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
1542551351
-
-
Id. at 19
-
Id. at 19.
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
1542446686
-
-
See id. at 21
-
See id. at 21.
-
-
-
-
69
-
-
1542446669
-
-
Id.
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
70
-
-
84865893574
-
-
See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 200 (1991) ("[A] law rarely survives such scrutiny.")
-
See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 200 (1991) ("[A] law rarely survives such scrutiny.").
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
1542761520
-
-
note
-
Id. at 198 (holding 100-foot campaign-free polling zone constitutional because it was necessary to serve the compelling right to cast a ballot free of intimidation and fraud); see also Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1988) (holding total ban on indecent telephone communications unconstitutional despite compelling interest of protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors because such a ban was not the least restrictive means).
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
1542656352
-
-
31 AM. U. L. REV. 945
-
See generally Antonio Cassese, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Terrorism and Human Rights, 31 AM. U. L. REV. 945, 946 (1982) ("[T]errorists are inspired by political motives and seek to overthrow the existing legal order or to bring about radical change in the fabric of society.").
-
(1982)
Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Terrorism and Human Rights
, pp. 946
-
-
Cassese, A.1
-
73
-
-
1542551389
-
-
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)
-
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
1542656350
-
-
note
-
"It is not enough to show that the Government's ends are compelling; the means must be carefully tailored to achieve those ends." Sable, 492 U.S. at 126 (holding that a total ban on indecent telephone communications unnecessarily restricts adult access to communications only unsuitable for children). But cf. Note, supra note 9, at 2081 (arguing that the AEDPA's ban is the least restrictive means and therefore constitutional because a lesser restrictive means such as a cap on funding would not prevent terrorism). In response, I would argue that a ban would not prevent terrorism either, and the best way to fight terrorism is through constitutional means. See infra text accompanying note 76.
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
1542761523
-
-
See infra notes 100-03 and accompanying text
-
See infra notes 100-03 and accompanying text.
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
1542551356
-
-
See infra note 104 and accompanying text
-
See infra note 104 and accompanying text.
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
1542761522
-
-
note
-
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 396 (1992) (facially invalidating St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance in a case where the defendant burned a cross on the yard of a black family).
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
1542551359
-
-
note
-
395 U.S. 444 (1969) (holding Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism law unconstitutional, and overturning conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader because the statute punished mere advocacy without requiring incitement to imminent lawless action).
-
-
-
-
79
-
-
1542446691
-
-
Id. at 447 (emphasis added)
-
Id. at 447 (emphasis added).
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
1542446690
-
-
note
-
As early as 1919, Justice Holmes stressed the importance of protecting speech at least until the threat is imminent: Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
84865893567
-
-
The strength of the immediacy requirement can also be seen in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), which held that the immediacy requirement was not satisfied when the defendant stated, while facing an angry crowd of antiwar demonstrators, "We'll take the f - ing streets later." See also Rohr, supra note 35, at 100-01 (describing the emphasis on immediacy). But see Note, supra note 9, at 2082 (arguing that the AEDPA's ban is facially constitutional, satisfying the Brandenburg test)
-
The strength of the immediacy requirement can also be seen in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), which held that the immediacy requirement was not satisfied when the defendant stated, while facing an angry crowd of antiwar demonstrators, "We'll take the f - ing streets later." See also Rohr, supra note 35, at 100-01 (describing the emphasis on immediacy). But see Note, supra note 9, at 2082 (arguing that the AEDPA's ban is facially constitutional, satisfying the Brandenburg test).
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
1542761497
-
-
See Note, supra note 9, at 2082-83
-
See Note, supra note 9, at 2082-83.
-
-
-
-
83
-
-
84865893568
-
-
In Buckley, the Court found this argument unpersuasive: "The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as the destruction of a draft card." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16 (1976)
-
In Buckley, the Court found this argument unpersuasive: "The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as the destruction of a draft card." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16 (1976).
-
-
-
-
84
-
-
1542551388
-
-
note
-
391 U.S. 367 (1968). According to the O'Brien two-track test, government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Id. at 377 (upholding defendant's conviction for willfully and knowingly burning his draft card because the government's interest in the availability of draft cards was unrelated to the suppression of speech, and because the law was the only way to prevent destruction).
-
-
-
-
85
-
-
1542761554
-
-
note
-
Id. at 377; see also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 385 (1992) ("[N]onverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not because of the ideas it expresses."); American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 119 F.3d 1367, 1376 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding O'Brien inapplicable because fundraising restrictions are in effect content-based, impermissibly targeting plaintiffs due to group affiliation), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3523 (U.S. Jan. 30, 1998) (No. 97-1252).
-
-
-
-
86
-
-
84865889823
-
-
See SMOLLA, supra note 38, at 54 ("[O'Brien is] one of the most important free speech decisions in American history - and also one of the most abused.")
-
See SMOLLA, supra note 38, at 54 ("[O'Brien is] one of the most important free speech decisions in American history - and also one of the most abused.").
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
1542446689
-
-
Id. at 58 (emphasis in original) (paraphrasing O'Brien)
-
Id. at 58 (emphasis in original) (paraphrasing O'Brien).
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
1542761485
-
-
note
-
Congress's first finding under the fundraising provision stated that "international terrorism is a serious and deadly problem that threatens the vital interests of the United States." Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 301(a)(1), 110 Stat. 1214, 1247.
-
-
-
-
89
-
-
1542551360
-
-
See SMOLLA, supra note 38, at 58
-
See SMOLLA, supra note 38, at 58.
-
-
-
-
90
-
-
1542761524
-
-
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 17 (1976) (quoting United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 382 (1968)). The primary purpose of the act in Buckley was to limit the illegal use of campaign contributions. See id. at 26
-
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 17 (1976) (quoting United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 382 (1968)). The primary purpose of the act in Buckley was to limit the illegal use of campaign contributions. See id. at 26.
-
-
-
-
91
-
-
1542551362
-
-
note
-
See Note, supra note 9, at 2083 (arguing that the government's "true interest lies in preventing the personal and property damage inflicted by terrorist groups, rather than in silencing their antigovernment message").
-
-
-
-
92
-
-
1542551361
-
-
See, e.g., Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
-
See, e.g., Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986).
-
-
-
-
93
-
-
1542761525
-
-
See id. at 48
-
See id. at 48.
-
-
-
-
94
-
-
1542551363
-
-
See id. at 50-54
-
See id. at 50-54.
-
-
-
-
95
-
-
1542656353
-
-
note
-
"A number of complex motivations may impel an individual to align himself with a particular organization." United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 n.16 (1967) (drawing a distinction between an active member and a passive or inactive member who disagrees or is unaware of the group's unlawful aims).
-
-
-
-
96
-
-
1542761527
-
-
See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976) (citing NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 (1958))
-
See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976) (citing NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 (1958)).
-
-
-
-
97
-
-
1542551369
-
-
See id. at 29
-
See id. at 29.
-
-
-
-
98
-
-
1542656372
-
-
See id. at 26
-
See id. at 26.
-
-
-
-
99
-
-
1542446709
-
-
See id. at 28
-
See id. at 28.
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
1542656362
-
-
supra note 7, testimony Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies citing Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301
-
The fact that the AEDPA deals with support for foreign organizations does not change the analysis. The First Amendment "right of association includes the right of Americans to associate with foreign organizations." Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 161 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies) (citing Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301 (1965)).
-
(1965)
Terrorism Hearings
, pp. 161
-
-
Dempsey, J.X.1
-
101
-
-
1542656366
-
-
note
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 302(a), 110 Stat. 1214, 1248-50 (amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1181-1188 (1994)). Section 302(a) provides: (1) In General - The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization . . . if the Secretary finds that - (A) the organization is a foreign organization; (B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)); and (C) the terrorist activity . . . threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States. Id., 110 Stat. at 1249-50.
-
-
-
-
102
-
-
1542446708
-
-
note
-
"Terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful, where committed or in the United States, and involves any of the following, or attempting, threatening, or conspiring to do any of the following: highjacking; hostage taking; violently attacking an internationally protected person; assassination; and using biological or chemical agents, nuclear devices, explosives, or firearms with the intent to endanger one or more individuals, or to cause substantial damage to property. See Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(ii) (West Supp. 1997).
-
-
-
-
103
-
-
0002305751
-
Understanding Terrorist Behavior: The Limits and Opportunities of Psychological Inquiry
-
Walter Reich ed.
-
As Walter Reich stated: Persons and groups have carried out terrorist acts for at least two thousand years. During that considerable span of human experience, such acts have been carried out by an enormously varied range of persons with an enormously varied range of beliefs in order to achieve an enormously varied range of ends . . . . [T]he list we can produce is breathtaking in its variety and scope. Walter Reich, Understanding Terrorist Behavior: The Limits and Opportunities of Psychological Inquiry, in ORIGINS OF TERRORISM 261, 261-62 (Walter Reich ed., 1990).
-
(1990)
Origins of Terrorism
, vol.261
, pp. 261-262
-
-
Reich, W.1
-
104
-
-
1542551364
-
-
O'Loughlin, supra note 16, at 114
-
O'Loughlin, supra note 16, at 114.
-
-
-
-
105
-
-
1542761526
-
-
note
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 302(a), 110 Stat. at 1249. However, the organization may appeal the designation within 30 days after publication. See id. An abuse-of-discretion standard of review is applied. See id. 105. The defendant cannot challenge the validity of the designation or argue that he was simply supporting the legal aims of the organization. Therefore, he is left with virtually no defense except that he did not contribute to the organization at all.
-
-
-
-
106
-
-
1542761518
-
-
See O'Loughlin, supra note 16, at 104
-
See O'Loughlin, supra note 16, at 104.
-
-
-
-
107
-
-
1542656367
-
-
note
-
This Part deals only with the rights of lawful, permanent-resident aliens, and makes no assertions as to the due-process rights of illegal aliens.
-
-
-
-
108
-
-
84865891808
-
-
See Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-33 (1982) ("[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.")
-
See Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-33 (1982) ("[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.").
-
-
-
-
109
-
-
1542551371
-
-
See Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 597-98
-
See Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 597-98.
-
-
-
-
110
-
-
84865903162
-
-
See Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34 ("[T]he constitutional sufficiency of procedures provided in any situation . . . varies with the circumstances.")
-
See Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34 ("[T]he constitutional sufficiency of procedures provided in any situation . . . varies with the circumstances.").
-
-
-
-
111
-
-
1542446692
-
-
7 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 23
-
See id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). See generally Michael Scaperlanda, Are We That Far Gone?: Due Process and Secret Deportation Proceedings, 7 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 23, 27-29 (1996); Amanda Masters, Comment, Is Procedural Due Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms? Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 999, 1008 (1996); Jim Rosenfeld, Note, Deportation Proceedings and Due Process of Law, 26 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 713, 737-49 (1995).
-
(1996)
Are We That Far Gone?: Due Process and Secret Deportation Proceedings
, pp. 27-29
-
-
Scaperlanda, M.1
-
112
-
-
1542761519
-
-
Comment, Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 999
-
See id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). See generally Michael Scaperlanda, Are We That Far Gone?: Due Process and Secret Deportation Proceedings, 7 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 23, 27-29 (1996); Amanda Masters, Comment, Is Procedural Due Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms? Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 999, 1008 (1996); Jim Rosenfeld, Note, Deportation Proceedings and Due Process of Law, 26 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 713, 737-49 (1995).
-
(1996)
Is Procedural Due Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms?
, pp. 1008
-
-
Masters, A.1
-
113
-
-
1542656356
-
-
Note, 26 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 713
-
See id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). See generally Michael Scaperlanda, Are We That Far Gone?: Due Process and Secret Deportation Proceedings, 7 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 23, 27-29 (1996); Amanda Masters, Comment, Is Procedural Due Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms? Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 999, 1008 (1996); Jim Rosenfeld, Note, Deportation Proceedings and Due Process of Law, 26 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 713, 737-49 (1995).
-
(1995)
Deportation Proceedings and Due Process of Law
, pp. 737-749
-
-
Rosenfeld, J.1
-
114
-
-
1542551372
-
-
Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34-37 (establishing test, discussing the individual's interests, and then remanding for consideration of other factors)
-
Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34-37 (establishing test, discussing the individual's interests, and then remanding for consideration of other factors).
-
-
-
-
115
-
-
1542446713
-
-
note
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 401(a), 110 Stat. 1214, 1258-68 (amending the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding a new title V). The Attorney General may seek removal under this new title if "removal under title II would pose a risk to the national security of the United States." Id., 110 Stat. at 1260 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1533(a)(1)(D)(iii) (West Supp. 1997)).
-
-
-
-
116
-
-
1542446712
-
-
note
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1262-63 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(e)(3)). This provision provides: (3) TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. - (A) USE. - The judge shall examine, ex parte and in camera, any evidence for which the Attorney General determines that public disclosure would pose a risk to the national security of the United States or to the security of any individual because it would disclose classified information. (B) SUBMISSION. - With respect to such information, the Government shall submit to the removal court an unclassified summary of the specific evidence that does not pose that risk. (C) APPROVAL. - Not later than 15 days after submission, the judge shall approve the summary if the judge finds that it is sufficient to enable the alien to prepare a defense. The Government shall deliver to the alien a copy of the unclassified summary approved under this subparagraph. Id.
-
-
-
-
117
-
-
1542656358
-
-
note
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1262 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A § 1534(e)(1)(B)). "[A]n alien subject to removal under this title shall not be entitled to suppress evidence that the alien alleges was unlawfully obtained . . . ." Id.
-
-
-
-
118
-
-
1542446693
-
-
See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 25-26
-
See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 25-26.
-
-
-
-
119
-
-
84865893570
-
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 401(a), 110 Stat. at 1262 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(e)(3)(C))
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 401(a), 110 Stat. at 1262 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(e)(3)(C)).
-
-
-
-
120
-
-
84865893566
-
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1263 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(g))
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1263 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(g)).
-
-
-
-
121
-
-
84865899564
-
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1261 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(c)(1)). Typically, aliens are not provided with counsel at the government's expense during deportation proceedings. See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 29
-
See id., 110 Stat. at 1261 (codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1534(c)(1)). Typically, aliens are not provided with counsel at the government's expense during deportation proceedings. See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 29.
-
-
-
-
122
-
-
0001090070
-
-
123 U. PA. L. REV. 1267, Friendly advocated, "[I]f an agency chooses to go further than is constitutionally demanded with respect to one item, this may afford good reason for diminishing or even eliminating another." Id. at 1279
-
See Henry J. Friendly, Some Kind of Hearing, 123 U. PA. L. REV. 1267, 1279-95 (1977). Friendly advocated, "[I]f an agency chooses to go further than is constitutionally demanded with respect to one item, this may afford good reason for diminishing or even eliminating another." Id. at 1279.
-
(1977)
Some Kind of Hearing
, pp. 1279-1295
-
-
Friendly, H.J.1
-
123
-
-
1542446714
-
-
Rosenfeld, supra note 111, at 744
-
Rosenfeld, supra note 111, at 744.
-
-
-
-
124
-
-
1542656361
-
-
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982)
-
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982).
-
-
-
-
125
-
-
1542551378
-
-
Id. (citations omitted)
-
Id. (citations omitted).
-
-
-
-
126
-
-
1542656360
-
-
Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 27
-
Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 27.
-
-
-
-
127
-
-
1542551380
-
-
338 U.S. 537 (1950)
-
338 U.S. 537 (1950).
-
-
-
-
128
-
-
1542446716
-
-
345 U.S. 206 (1953)
-
345 U.S. 206 (1953).
-
-
-
-
129
-
-
1542551383
-
-
See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 27-28; see also GELLHORN, supra note 47, at 141-43
-
See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 27-28; see also GELLHORN, supra note 47, at 141-43.
-
-
-
-
130
-
-
1542551381
-
-
note
-
It has been argued that without the ability to keep information secret, law enforcement is hindered, and that if information and sources of information are kept classified, some deportation proceedings might not be brought against terrorists. See Scaperlanda, supra note 111, at 29.
-
-
-
-
131
-
-
1542761542
-
-
Rosenfeld, supra note 111, at 747
-
Rosenfeld, supra note 111, at 747.
-
-
-
-
132
-
-
84865889821
-
-
See id. at 748-49. "Secrecy should be the exception rather than the rule." Id. at 749. The government should at the very least be required to show that secrecy is necessary to prevent a substantial risk
-
See id. at 748-49. "Secrecy should be the exception rather than the rule." Id. at 749. The government should at the very least be required to show that secrecy is necessary to prevent a substantial risk.
-
-
-
-
133
-
-
1542551376
-
-
note
-
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 411(1)(c), 110 Stat 1214, 1268-69 (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) (1994)), adds to the list of excludable aliens "a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary." Defining an alien as excludable, in effect, also defines the alien as deportable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (providing that any excludable alien shall be immediately deported).
-
-
-
-
134
-
-
1542551370
-
-
note
-
See Terrorism Hearings, supra note 7, at 160-61 (testimony of James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director, Center for National Security Studies).
-
-
-
-
135
-
-
1542761535
-
-
See id. at 160
-
See id. at 160.
-
-
-
-
137
-
-
1542446697
-
-
note
-
See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 440(c), 110 Stat. at 1277 (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)). The Act provides: The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien convicted of any criminal offense covered in section 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) [aggravated felony], (B) [possession of controlled substances], (C) [certain firearm offenses], or (D) [miscellaneous crimes, e.g., espionage, sabotage, sedition, selective service violations] of this title, or any offense covered by section 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) of this title [conviction of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude] for which both predicate offenses are covered by section 1251(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title [classifying crimes of moral turpitude committed within certain time periods after the date of entry as deportable offenses], upon release of the alien from incarceration, shall deport the alien as expeditiously as possible. . . . [T]he Attorney General shall not release such felon from custody. Montero v. Cobb, 937 F. Supp. 88, 89 n.1 (D. Mass. 1996) (all but last alteration in original; italicization in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act § 440(c)).
-
-
-
-
138
-
-
1542551368
-
-
Montero, 937 F. Supp. at 92 n.5
-
Montero, 937 F. Supp. at 92 n.5.
-
-
-
-
139
-
-
1542656363
-
-
See id.
-
See id.
-
-
-
-
140
-
-
1542761545
-
-
See DeMelo v. Cobb, 936 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1996), vacated as moot, 108 F.3d 328 (1st Cir. 1997)
-
See DeMelo v. Cobb, 936 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1996), vacated as moot, 108 F.3d 328 (1st Cir. 1997).
-
-
-
-
141
-
-
1542761541
-
-
Id. at 34
-
Id. at 34.
-
-
-
-
142
-
-
1542656364
-
-
Id. at 32. The court also discussed a resident alien's right to due process. See id.; see also supra text accompanying notes 107-11
-
Id. at 32. The court also discussed a resident alien's right to due process. See id.; see also supra text accompanying notes 107-11.
-
-
-
-
143
-
-
1542761544
-
-
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 532 (1958) (Black, J., concurring)
-
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 532 (1958) (Black, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
144
-
-
26344455488
-
Slow on Terror
-
Aug. 10
-
One may find temporary solace in the fact that as of the writing of this Note, well over a year after the AEDPA became law, the Secretary of State had not yet designated a single organization. But, Congress is getting impatient and 42 members have protested the delay, with one member claiming that the delay has made the Act "toothless." A.M. Rosenthal, Slow on Terror, NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE, Aug. 10, 1997, at B7 (reporting that Rep. Charles Schumer threatened to withhold a significant part of the State Department's budget if the list were not made public by September). Several possible reasons for this delay exist. The State Department blames the delay on the preparation of briefs of justification to ensure each designation can stand up to judicial scrutiny. See Elizabeth A. Palmer, Lawmakers Press Terrorism Issue; Secretary of State Urged to Designate Foreign Groups, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver), July 20, 1997, at 4A, available in 1997 WL 6846850. One other possible explanation that has been argued is "domestic political concerns . . . especially a concern that the law might require the United States to label the Irish Republican Army as a terrorist organization. That could antagonize many Irish-Americans and complicate U.S. efforts to promote the peace process in Northern Ireland." Id.
-
(1997)
New Orleans Times-Picayune
-
-
Rosenthal, A.M.1
-
145
-
-
26344466377
-
Lawmakers Press Terrorism Issue; Secretary of State Urged to Designate Foreign Groups
-
Denver, July 20, available in 1997 WL 6846850
-
One may find temporary solace in the fact that as of the writing of this Note, well over a year after the AEDPA became law, the Secretary of State had not yet designated a single organization. But, Congress is getting impatient and 42 members have protested the delay, with one member claiming that the delay has made the Act "toothless." A.M. Rosenthal, Slow on Terror, NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE, Aug. 10, 1997, at B7 (reporting that Rep. Charles Schumer threatened to withhold a significant part of the State Department's budget if the list were not made public by September). Several possible reasons for this delay exist. The State Department blames the delay on the preparation of briefs of justification to ensure each designation can stand up to judicial scrutiny. See Elizabeth A. Palmer, Lawmakers Press Terrorism Issue; Secretary of State Urged to Designate Foreign Groups, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver), July 20, 1997, at 4A, available in 1997 WL 6846850. One other possible explanation that has been argued is "domestic political concerns . . . especially a concern that the law might require the United States to label the Irish Republican Army as a terrorist organization. That could antagonize many Irish-Americans and complicate U.S. efforts to promote the peace process in Northern Ireland." Id.
-
(1997)
Rocky Mountain News
-
-
Palmer, E.A.1
-
146
-
-
1542761550
-
-
Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 145 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting)
-
Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 145 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
|