Name Date Class Supreme Court Case Study 26
First Amendment Rights for Communists
DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Background of the Case
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
In July 1934 Dirk DeJonge spoke at a meeting in Portland, Oregon, organized by the local
Communist Party to protest police raids on workers’ halls and police shootings of striking dock
workers. The meeting had been clearly advertised as under the auspices of the Communist
Party and its speakers, including DeJonge, as party members. About 10 to 15 percent of the 150
to 300 people present were also Communist Party members.
In his speech DeJonge protested conditions in the county jail, police tactics relating to the
dock workers’ strike, and other matters pertaining to the strike. He also asked those present
to help support the party and to purchase Communist literature. The meeting went on in an
orderly fashion until police raided the hall, arrested DeJonge and others, and seized a large
quantity of Communist literature.
DeJonge was tried under an Oregon law making it illegal to publish, print, distribute, or
teach criminal syndicalism, defined as “the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence,
sabotage, or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial
or political change or revolution.” All these acts were felonies, punishable by up to 10 years in
prison and/or a fine of up to $1,000.
Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
DeJonge was charged with taking part in a meeting of the Communist Party, an organization
that the state claimed advocated criminal syndicalism and sabotage. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The judgment was supported by the Oregon Supreme
Court. DeJonge then appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court.
C
onstitutional Issue
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
In his defense, DeJonge claimed that Oregon’s criminal syndicalism law violated the
Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. The Court examined whether or not the First
Amendment’s guarantee of the right of peaceful assembly was included under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Supreme Court’s Decision ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
The Court held unanimously for DeJonge. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the
Court.
Hughes summarized the charge against DeJonge as follows: “His sole offense as charged . . .
was that he had assisted in the conduct of a public meeting, albeit otherwise lawful, which was
held under the auspices of the Communist Party.” As the Chief Justice pointed out, this meant
that any meeting called by the Communist Party to discuss any subject should result in every
speaker at that meeting being convicted and jailed like DeJonge. So, while the Court agreed that
states may defend themselves against attempts to replace orderly political action by revolutionary
(continued)
Supreme Court Case Studies
51
Name Supreme Court Case Study 26
Date Class (continued)
force and violence, “none of our decisions go to the length of sustaining such a curtailment
of the right to free speech and assembly as the Oregon statute demands. . . .”
Since the Court held that First Amendment rights of speech and press were binding on
the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, now it found that “the right of
peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. . . . For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental
principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions,
principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in its due process clause.”
Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that it cannot be a crime to assemble
peaceably for lawful discussion, to hold meetings for peaceable political action, or to assist at
such meetings, no matter who sponsors them. Prosecutions are justified only for crimes committed elsewhere or for conspiracies against public peace and order. Hughes stated, however,
“It is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting individuals for such offenses,
seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the
basis for a criminal charge.”
This decision marked one of the early cases in which the Court incorporated the freedom
of speech and freedom of assembly provisions of the First Amendment into the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus making them binding on the states.
DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper.
2. What made this decision particularly significant?
3. If you had been at DeJonge’s meeting, would you have been surprised to learn that it was sponsored
by the Communist Party?
4. Who stood to gain from the Court’s decision in the DeJonge case?
5. Do you think that any limits should be set on the right to peaceful assembly? If so, explain what
circumstances might call for such limits.
52
Supreme Court Case Studies
Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
1. Why was the right to assemble called fundamental by the Court?