ÃÛÌÒÖ±²¥

Legal Principle at Issue

Did the state of New Hampshire violate Sweezy’s constitutional rights by compelling him to answer questions about his political beliefs and the content of his university lecture?

Action

The Court ruled in favor of Sweezy, holding that the state's actions violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court expressed concern over government interference in university teaching and scholarship, and academic freedom was identified as a "special concern of the First Amendment," marking one of the first times the Court explicitly endorsed this concept. While the decision avoided a direct ruling on the constitutionality of the state's Subversive Activities Act, it struck down its application in this case as overly broad and invasive. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence especially stressed that arbitrary investigations threaten the essential liberties protected by due process, tying it closely to academic freedom as a key societal value.

Facts/Syllabus

Paul Sweezy, a Marxist economist and co-founder of the Monthly Review, was questioned by the New Hampshire Attorney General under the state’s Subversive Activities Act. He was asked about the content of a lecture he gave at the University of New Hampshire and his associations with the Progressive Party and Communist activities. Sweezy refused to answer some of these questions, asserting his First Amendment rights, and was held in contempt. This judgment was affirmed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which construed the term "subversive persons" broadly enough to include persons engaged in conduct only remotely related to actual subversion and done completely apart from any conscious intent to be a part of such activity. It also held that the need of the legislature to be informed on the subject of self-preservation of government outweighed the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred in the process.

Importance of Case

Sweezy v. New Hampshire is a foundational case for the concept of academic freedom in U.S. constitutional law. Before Sweezy, "academic freedom" wasn't formally protected under constitutional law. In this case, the Court recognized that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech extends to universities and scholars — emphasizing that a free society needs free inquiry, free teaching, and free debate in higher education. Without academic freedom, intellectual progress would be stifled. The Court also said the government cannot investigate or interrogate people arbitrarily without clear legal standards. By tying academic freedom to Fourteenth Amendment due process, Sweezy made clear that vague and unlimited government power (especially around political beliefs) is unconstitutional.