## Facts

- New Hampshire authorized its Attorney General, under an anti-subversive statutory scheme and related legislative authorization, to investigate whether “subversive persons” were present in the state and to recommend legislation.
- Paul M. Sweezy, a Marxist economist and lecturer, was summoned in 1954 and questioned by the Attorney General about alleged subversive activity.
- Sweezy answered many questions, including whether he was a Communist, but refused to answer questions concerning (1) the contents of a guest lecture he delivered at the University of New Hampshire and (2) his knowledge of the Progressive Party of New Hampshire and its members.
- Sweezy did not assert the privilege against self-incrimination; he objected that the questions were not properly related to a lawful inquiry and infringed constitutional protections for expression and association.
- After a court ordered Sweezy to answer and he again refused, a state trial court held him in contempt and sentenced him.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, broadly construing “subversive persons” and crediting a general state interest in governmental self-preservation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the direct appeal for lack of established appellate jurisdiction, granted certiorari, and reviewed the contempt judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling Sweezy, under a broadly framed and weakly controlled state legislative inquiry, to disclose the contents of a university lecture and information about political associations violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the State was required to show a clearly defined legislative purpose and a demonstrated connection between that purpose and the specific questions asked before using contempt to compel answers implicating expression, association, and teaching.

## Decision

- The Court reversed the contempt judgment in a 6–2 vote (Justice Whittaker not participating).
- A plurality concluded that, on this record, the State failed to show a sufficiently clear and specific legislative purpose and need to justify compelling disclosure of the refused information.
- The plurality held that the investigation’s broad, indefinite authorization and the absence of a demonstrated legislative objective made the compulsion incompatible with due process.
- A concurrence agreed in the result and stressed constitutional protection for academic freedom, identifying institutional autonomy over who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted.
- A dissent would have upheld the contempt judgment, reasoning that the State’s anti-subversion interest justified the inquiry and that the questions were adequately related to legitimate legislative concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Due process limits state legislative inquiries that compel disclosure about political beliefs, associations, or teaching; the State must demonstrate a clearly defined legislative purpose and a meaningful connection between that purpose and the questions asked.
- A broadly worded or uncontrolled investigative mandate, coupled with contempt sanctions, can violate due process when used to compel answers in areas that implicate freedom of expression, association, and university teaching.
- Academic freedom is a protected liberty interest: governmental compulsion directed at classroom or lecture content risks impermissible intrusion into university functions and threatens intellectual independence.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Sweezy’s contempt conviction because the State, acting through the Attorney General, compelled answers about teaching and political associations without a clearly shown, legislatively defined purpose and adequate justification, violating due process and affirming strong constitutional protection for academic freedom and related expressive liberties.


Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)