ii Index Continued Page Shields v. Utah, Idaho Central R.R. Co., 305 U.S. 177 Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) .... Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) Sen. Rep. No. 1005, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1934). IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM 1960 No. 419 LINUS PAULING, Petitioner, V. JAMES O. EASTLAND, THOMAS J. DODD, OLIVER GASCH, and JOSEPH C. DUKE BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI STATEMENT This brief is submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae, with the written consent of both parties filed with the Clerk of this Court. In this brief, the amicus will support petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, on September 6, 1960, affirmed an order of the United States District Court dismissing petitioner's complaint. While the American Civil Liberties Union is aware that this Court does not favor amicus curiae briefs in support of certiorari petitions, it is, nevertheless, filing the instant brief because of the importance of this case and because of its concern that if certiorari is denied it will be deprived of an opportunity to submit on the merits' its views with respect to what is, perhaps, the major issue involved, viz.: whether and under what circumstances a witness before a congressional committee can invoke the equity jurisdiction of the district court to adjudicate the validity of an order duces tecum prior to the institution of contempt proceedings against him. Unless certiorari is granted, this major and novel issue will, after October 11, 1960, have been mooted.2 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS The American Civil Liberties Union is a national, nonpartisan organization devoted solely to the protection and advancement of constitutional rights. Civil liberties, born of centuries of the people's struggle for dignity and freedom, are a basic part of man's heritage. Freedom of religion, thought, communication, assembly, dissent, freedom from discrimination, and the right to due process, are highly prized parts of this heritage. We are interested in this case because of our conviction that congressional 1 Apart from the submission of a brief amicus on the merits in accordance with Rule 42, we are informed by petitioner's counsel that if certiorari is granted petitioner will permit the amicus to have a portion of petitioner's time for oral argument as provided by Rule 44(7). 2 On September 9, 1960, the Solicitor General advised this Court that petitioner's reappearance before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, originally scheduled for September 15, 1960, had been postponed to October 11, 1960. The Solicitor General further advised of the accelerated filing of the petition and brief in opposition in order to "afford this Court an opportunity to consider the petition and, if the Court is so disposed, to determine before October 11th whether to grant or to deny the writ of certiorari." investigations involving broad-scale intrusions into the lives and affairs of private citizens have transformed the valid congressional power to investigate into exposure for exposure's sake. The docket of this Court bears witness to the insistent claim that since Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), the lower courts have been permitting congressional committees to ride roughshod over individuals' First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.3 We are especially concerned with this problem in the instant case because petitioner is being compelled to disclose the names of persons who circulated and solicited signatures for a petition of some 11,000 scientists from some 49 nations as part of a world movement to secure action within the United Nations to arrest and prevent further contamination of the world's atmosphere caused by nuclear explosions. These are persons, who without reference to particular national interest, contributed their services in order to enable Linus Pauling (petitioner herein) to place before the United Nations an expression of a representative and impressive group of scientists from all over the world concerning nuclear contamination—a subject that affects all nations and peoples. Since the "Pauling petition" may not coincide with the nuclear or nationalistic policy of countries where some of these persons reside, they may become subject to persecution. Indeed, the Committee's insistence that petitioner disclose their names can only interfere with and restrain like 3 Braden v. United States, No. 54, this Term, certiorari granted, 362 U.S. 926; Wilkinson v. United States, No. 37, certiorari granted, 362 U.S. 926; McPhaul v. United States, No. 33, certiorari granted, 362 U.S. 917, see also, this Term; Deutch v. United States, No. 233; Shelton v. United States, No. 246, Russell v. United States, No. 239; Whitman v. United States, No. 300; Liveright v. United States, No. 328; Price v. United States, No. 331; Gojack v. United States, Misc. No. 313. of certiorari petitions, it is, nevertheless, filing the instant brief because of the importance of this case and because of its concern that if certiorari is denied it will be deprived of an opportunity to submit on the merits1 its views with respect to what is, perhaps, the major issue involved, viz.: whether and under what circumstances a witness before a congressional committee can invoke the equity jurisdiction of the district court to adjudicate the validity of an order duces tecum prior to the institution of contempt proceedings against him. Unless certiorari is granted, this major and novel issue will, after October 11, 1960, have been mooted.2 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS The American Civil Liberties Union is a national, nonpartisan organization devoted solely to the protection and advancement of constitutional rights. Civil liberties, born of centuries of the people's struggle for dignity and freedom, are a basic part of man's heritage. Freedom of religion, thought, communication, assembly, dissent, freedom from discrimination, and the right to due process, are highly prized parts of this heritage. We are interested in this case because of our conviction that congressional 1 Apart from the submission of a brief amicus on the merits in accordance with Rule 42, we are informed by petitioner's counsel that if certiorari is granted petitioner will permit the amicus to have a portion of petitioner's time for oral argument as provided by Rule 44(7). 2 On September 9, 1960, the Solicitor General advised this Court that petitioner's reappearance before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, originally scheduled for September 15, 1960, had been postponed to October 11, 1960. The Solicitor General further advised of the accelerated filing of the petition and brief in opposition in order to "afford this Court an opportunity to consider the petition and, if the Court is so disposed, to determine before October 11th whether to grant or to deny the writ of certiorari." |