Emspak v. United States

Background

A labor-union leader, serving as the union’s secretary-treasurer and editor, was subpoenaed in 1949 to testify before a one-member subcommittee investigating Communist affiliation and security in government contract plants. He answered many questions but refused 68 that probed his associations, invoking primarily the First Amendment supplemented by the Fifth. He was indicted under a federal law that makes refusing to answer pertinent congressional questions a crime, convicted in the district court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that his statement was a sufficient claim of the Fifth Amendment and that certain questions clearly could be incriminating. The Court found the eight questions about Communist Party activity and two about known “front” organizations were protected, and it concluded the 58 association questions were potentially dangerous in the setting of recent convictions, public reports of prosecutions, and the witness’s identification at a related trial. The Court also emphasized that the committee never specifically overruled his objection or expressly required answers, so his refusals lacked the deliberate character the statute requires for criminal contempt.

Real world impact

The Court reversed and ordered acquittal, protecting witnesses who assert constitutional protections during congressional probes. The decision requires committees to make a clear, on-the-record demand for answers before treating silence as criminal. It recognizes that answers which might serve as “links in the chain” of criminal proof can be covered by the Fifth Amendment.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice dissented, agreeing privilege applied to the Communist-membership questions but arguing the first 58 association questions were not incriminating and that the committee had plainly pressed for answers; he would have affirmed the conviction.