DeGregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire

Background

A man under investigation was questioned by the New Hampshire Attorney General under a 1957 state law that allowed broad probes into “subversive” activity and public disclosure of testimony. He testified he had not been a Communist since 1957 and knew of no current Communist activity, but he refused to answer questions about his political associations from earlier years. He was jailed for contempt after New Hampshire courts upheld the punishment.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the First Amendment bars forcing someone to disclose old political associations when the State shows no present threat or compelling need. The Court noted the State relied on a 1955 report and offered no evidence of current Communist activity in New Hampshire. Because the questions sought only historical information and publication would expose and harm associational privacy, the Court found the State’s interest too remote and reversed the contempt judgment.

Real world impact

The decision protects people with past or unpopular political ties from being compelled to reveal those associations absent a demonstrated present danger or compelling state need. It limits a State’s ability to use contempt to force historical disclosures and constrains investigative statutes that authorize publishing testimony. States may still investigate current threats, but they must show a real, present connection before compelling testimony about the past.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan, joined by two Justices, dissented, arguing states should be free to investigate subversion and that past activities could legitimately inform present inquiries, so he would have affirmed the contempt judgment.