The Nostrand v. Little, 362 U.S. 474 (1960) case,which twice reached the Supreme Court, dealt with a Washington statute that required all public employees to take an oath that they were not members of subversive organizations or face immediate dismissal. The cases were considered by the Court to determine whether the law violated employees’ due process and other constitutional rights.

Because one ground for the case rested on the claim that employees had no opportunity for a hearing, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion remanding the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for determination of this point. Justice William O.Douglas wrote a dissent,joined by Justice Hugo L. Black, arguing that the remand was useless because he did not think such a hearing would exempt individuals from the oath. Douglas thought the underlying First Amendment issue of whether such oaths could be required was ripe for review.

After the Washington Supreme Court ruled that individuals who refused to take the oath were entitled to a hearing, employees challenged the oath on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Again the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion dismissing this question, this time “for want of a substantial federal question.” Once again, Douglas dissented, joined by Black.

In examining the oath that employees were required to take, Douglas observed that employees had to swear that they did not intend “to ‘alter’ the Government of the United States by ‘revolution.’” He observed that “[t]o ‘alter’ has been the objective of many who have proposed constitutional amendments. The idea of ‘revolution’ is an American concept that at least until recently has been greatly revered. A ‘revolution’that operates through the route of constitutional amendments would, at least arguably, be in keeping with our ideas of freedom of belief and expression.”

Send Feedback on this article