## Facts

- A House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) subcommittee investigated alleged Communist infiltration in education.
- Lloyd Barenblatt, a former University of Michigan graduate student/teaching fellow and later a Vassar professor, was subpoenaed after testimony suggested he had belonged to a Communist club while at Michigan.
- At the hearing, the subcommittee asked whether Barenblatt was then, or had ever been, a member of the Communist Party and posed related questions about his political and associational activities.
- Barenblatt refused to answer, objecting to the subcommittee’s authority to inquire into his beliefs and associations.
- He expressly disclaimed reliance on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and instead asserted constitutional objections, including the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, separation of powers, and the prohibition on bills of attainder.
- He was convicted under 2 U.S.C. § 192 for refusing to answer questions deemed pertinent to the inquiry, fined, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether HUAC and its subcommittee had valid legislative authority to investigate Communist activity in education and whether the questions were “pertinent to the question under inquiry” under 2 U.S.C. § 192.
2. Whether compelling disclosure of Communist Party membership and related associations violated the First Amendment so as to bar punishment for refusing to answer.
3. Whether, consistent with the notice/pertinency requirements applied in Watkins, Barenblatt was sufficiently apprised of the subject matter and pertinency of the questions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held HUAC’s authorizing rule and history of reauthorization supplied valid legislative authority to investigate Communist activity, including in education.
- The Court found the membership questions were pertinent to the authorized inquiry and that Barenblatt had adequate notice of the investigation’s subject.
- Applying a First Amendment balancing approach, the Court concluded Congress’s interest in investigating Communist activity for potential legislation outweighed the asserted associational burdens on this record.
- Because Barenblatt refused to answer without invoking the Fifth Amendment, his refusal constituted punishable contempt under § 192.

## Legal Principles

- Congress has broad power to investigate matters on which it may legislate; committees may compel testimony needed to perform legislative functions.
- Congressional investigatory power is subject to constitutional limits, including the Bill of Rights, but does not categorically bar inquiries affecting speech or association.
- Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, a contempt conviction requires that the question refused be pertinent to the authorized subject of inquiry and that the witness be sufficiently informed of that subject and pertinency.
- When a congressional inquiry implicates First Amendment interests, courts weigh the individual’s associational interests against the governmental interest in the investigation; compelled answers may be upheld where the legislative purpose is valid and the balance favors the governmental interest.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained a contempt-of-Congress conviction for refusing to answer HUAC questions about Communist Party membership, holding that the subcommittee acted within valid legislative authority, the questions were pertinent with adequate notice, and the First Amendment did not provide an absolute privilege to refuse testimony when Congress’s asserted legislative and national-security interests outweighed the associational burden.


Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959)