## Facts

- Congress enacted the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, requiring organizations found to be “Communist-action organizations” to register with the Attorney General and disclose extensive organizational information, including member identities.
- The Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB), after lengthy administrative hearings, found the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) to be a “Communist-action organization” and ordered it to register.
- CPUSA sought judicial review; the Supreme Court earlier remanded for consideration of constitutional and other issues not previously reached.
- On remand, the SACB reaffirmed its classification and registration order after reconsidering the record and resolving procedural disputes involving cross-examination and document production.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the SACB’s order, including rulings that certain discovery efforts were abandoned or untimely.
- CPUSA again sought Supreme Court review, arguing procedural error, misapplication of the statute, and violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether the SACB’s evidentiary and procedural rulings (including limits on striking testimony, denial of document production, and denial of late discovery motions) required another remand.
2. Whether the record supported classifying CPUSA as a “Communist-action organization,” including whether it was “substantially directed, dominated, or controlled” by the Soviet Union and operated primarily to advance the objectives of the world Communist movement under the Act.
3. Whether compelled registration and disclosure requirements, as applied to CPUSA, violated the First Amendment rights of speech and association.
4. Whether the registration scheme, as applied, violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or due process.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed (5–4) the D.C. Circuit and upheld the SACB order requiring CPUSA to register.
- The Court held the challenged procedural rulings did not amount to prejudicial error; the SACB and reviewing court acted within permissible discretion.
- The Court held CPUSA was properly found to be a “Communist-action organization” within the statutory definition based on the administrative record.
- The Court rejected CPUSA’s First Amendment challenge, concluding Congress could require registration of an organization found to be an instrumentality of a foreign-directed movement as a national security measure.
- The Court rejected a facial Fifth Amendment challenge, treating the duty to register as imposed on the organization and finding the asserted incriminating consequences too indirect at that stage.
- Dissents argued the statute functioned as punishment and suppression of political association and that compelled disclosures implicated self-incrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative agencies and reviewing courts have substantial discretion over evidentiary management; claims may be denied as abandoned if not timely pursued, and belated discovery motions may be denied as untimely without reversible error absent prejudice.
- An organization may be compelled to register under the Subversive Activities Control Act if supported findings show it fits the statutory definition of a “Communist-action organization,” including substantial foreign direction or control and operation to advance the objectives of a world Communist movement.
- Compelled disclosure burdens on association may be sustained when Congress targets organizational activity tied to a foreign-directed security threat and the measure is framed as registration/disclosure rather than a direct ban on advocacy.
- For Fifth Amendment purposes, an organizational reporting requirement is not necessarily invalid on its face solely because disclosed information might increase risks of prosecution under other laws; individual privilege questions are treated as distinct from the organization’s duty to register.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the statutory registration scheme as applied to CPUSA, finding no reversible procedural error, sufficient evidence supporting the SACB’s classification, and no First or Fifth Amendment violation from requiring the Party to register and disclose required information.


Communist Party of the U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1 (1961)