Aptheker v. Secretary of State

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsconstitutional right to travelFifth Amendmentoverbreadthright to travel abroadFifth Amendment libertyoverbreadthnarrow tailoring

Facts

Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act made it unlawful for a member of a registered Communist organization, with knowledge or notice of the registration or final order, to apply for, renew, use, or attempt to use a United States passport. After a final order required the Communist Party of the United States to register, the State Department revoked the valid passports of appellants Aptheker and Flynn, both native-born citizens, on the ground that their use would violate § 6. Administrative hearing examiners, the Board of Passport Appeals, and the Secretary of State upheld the revocations based on findings that appellants were members of the Communist Party with knowledge or notice of the registration order. Appellants conceded the Secretary had an adequate basis for finding membership and that the revocations were proper if § 6 was constitutional, but argued that § 6 unconstitutionally deprived them of liberty, including the right to travel abroad.

Issue

Whether § 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act, which criminally bars members of registered Communist organizations from applying for or using passports, is constitutional under the Fifth Amendment. Also, if the statute is invalid on its face, whether it may nevertheless be sustained as applied to these appellants because they were top-ranking Party leaders.

Rule

The right to travel abroad is an important aspect of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Even when Congress pursues a legitimate and substantial objective such as national security, it may not achieve that end by means that sweep unnecessarily broadly and invade protected freedoms; legislation affecting basic freedoms must be narrowly drawn, viewed in light of less drastic means, and may not rest on a tenuous connection between bare organizational membership and the feared harmful activity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates the Foreign Security Travel Act. It makes it a felony for any person who is a member of an organization placed by final administrative order on a federal "hostile-influence list" to apply for or use a U.S. passport once notice of the listing is published in the Federal Register. Maya Torres, a member of such an organization in Seattle, wants to travel to Spain to obtain medical treatment.

If Maya challenges the statute on its face, what is the strongest argument that the law is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority recognized travel abroad as an important aspect of Fifth Amendment liberty and held that even a legitimate national-security objective cannot be pursued by means that sweep unnecessarily broadly. A passport ban keyed only to bare membership, without regard to knowledge, activity, commitment, purpose, or destination, is not narrowly drawn.