United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

DeGREGORY v. NEW HAMP. ATTY. GEN., 383 U.S. 825 (1966)

DeGREGORY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
No. 396.
Argued February 24, 1966.
Decided April 4, 1966.

Appellee made an investigation under a statute authorizing him as Attorney General of New Hampshire to investigate whenever he had information he deemed reasonable relating to "violations" covering a wide range of "subversive" activities designed to overthrow the constitutional form of the State's government. Appellant, answering questions relating to the period since 1957, stated that he did not serve in a subversive role and lacked knowledge of current subversion. He refused, without asserting the privilege against self-incrimination, to answer questions about earlier periods which respondent asked in reliance on a 1955 report connecting appellant with the Communist Party only up to 10 years before the investigation. The trial court found appellant guilty of contempt and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Held: On the record here the State's interest in protecting itself against subversion is too remote to override appellant's First Amendment right to political and associational privacy. Pp. 828-830.

(a) No attack is made on the truthfulness of appellant's testimony that he had not been involved with the Communist Party since 1957 and had no knowledge of Communist activities during that period. P. 829.

(b) The staleness of the basis for the investigation and the subject matter, which was of historical rather than current interest, made indefensible compelled disclosure of appellant's political and associational past. P. 829.

(c) The First Amendment protects that privacy and it may not be breached where there is no showing of a compelling state interest. P. 829.

(d) There is no evidence here of any Communist movement in New Hampshire or showing of danger of sedition to the State, and thus no "nexus" between appellant and subversive activities in the State. Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, distinguished. Pp. 829-830.

Page 383 U.S. 825, 826

Howard S. Whiteside argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

R. Peter Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were William Maynard, Attorney General, and Joseph F. Gall, Special Assistant Attorney General.

Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, announced by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN.

This is the third time that the constitutional rights of appellant challenged in investigations by New Hampshire into subversion have been brought to us.[Footnote 1] The present case stems from an investigation by the Attorney General of the State under Rev. Stat. Ann. 588:8-a (1965 Supp.), enacted in 1957, which provides in part:

"At any time when the attorney general has information which he deems reasonable or reliable relating to violations of the provisions of this chapter he shall make full and complete investigation thereof and shall report to the general court the results of this investigation, together with his recommendations, if any, for legislation. . . . [T]he attorney general is hereby authorized to make public such information received by him, testimony given before him, and matters handled by him as he deems fit to effectuate the purposes hereof."