InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Barenblatt v. United States

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress.

360 U.S. 109 · No. 35 · 1958 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 8, 1959 · argued Nov 18, 1958

First Amendment · Legislative investigations: concerning internal security only

Majority opinion: John Harlan

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. Barenblatt lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Barenblatt was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1958 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenBrennanClarkStewartWhittakerHarlanFrankfurter

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
BarenblattWitness, or person under subpoena
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fifth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 8, 1959DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Barenblatt lost.
  2. Nov 18, 1958ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

20 other argued cases since 1946 on legislative investigations: concerning internal security only, newest first.

  1. Eastland et al. v. United States Servicemen's Fund et al.421 U.S. 491May 27, 1975 · 421 U.S. 491First Amendment8–18–1 band
  2. Dombrowski et al. v. Eastland et al.387 U.S. 82May 15, 1967 · 387 U.S. 82First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
  3. Gojack v. United States384 U.S. 702Jun 13, 1966 · 384 U.S. 702First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  4. Degregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire383 U.S. 825Apr 4, 1966 · 383 U.S. 825First Amendment6–36–3 band
  5. Yellin v. United States374 U.S. 109Jun 17, 1963 · 374 U.S. 109First Amendment5–45–4 band
  6. Wheeldin et al. v. Wheeler373 U.S. 647Jun 3, 1963 · 373 U.S. 647First Amendment6–36–3 band
  7. Silber v. United States370 U.S. 717Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 717First Amendment5–27–2 band
  8. Grumman v. United States370 U.S. 288Jun 18, 1962 · 370 U.S. 288First Amendment5–27–2 band
  9. Russell v. United States369 U.S. 749May 21, 1962 · 369 U.S. 749First Amendment5–27–2 band
  10. Deutch v. United States367 U.S. 456Jun 12, 1961 · 367 U.S. 456First Amendment5–45–4 band
  11. Slagle et al. v. Ohio366 U.S. 259May 15, 1961 · 366 U.S. 259First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
  12. Braden v. United States365 U.S. 431Feb 27, 1961 · 365 U.S. 431First Amendment5–45–4 band

  13. Wilkinson v. United States365 U.S. 399Feb 27, 1961 · 365 U.S. 399First Amendment5–45–4 band

  14. McPhaul v. United States364 U.S. 372Nov 14, 1960 · 364 U.S. 372First Amendment5–45–4 band
  15. Raley et al. v. Ohio360 U.S. 423Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 423First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
  16. Uphaus v. Wyman, Attorney General of New Hampshire360 U.S. 72Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 72First Amendment5–45–4 band
  17. Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities359 U.S. 344May 4, 1959 · 359 U.S. 344First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  18. Flaxer v. United States358 U.S. 147Dec 15, 1958 · 358 U.S. 147First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  19. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, by Wyman, Attorney General354 U.S. 234Jun 17, 1957 · 354 U.S. 234First Amendment6–27–2 band

  20. Watkins v. United States354 U.S. 178Jun 17, 1957 · 354 U.S. 178First Amendment6–18–1 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.