Wilkinson v. United States
The Court sustained the conviction of a housing administrator who refused to tell a congressional subcommittee whether he was a Communist Party member, upholding the conviction under the statute criminalizing refusal to answer pertinent questions from Congress.· AI-written
365 U.S. 399 · No. 37 · 1960 term · Warren Court
Decided Feb 27, 1961 · argued Nov 17, 1960
First Amendment · Legislative investigations: concerning internal security only
Majority opinion: Potter Stewart
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Wilkinson lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Wilkinson 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), was a court case during the McCarthy Era in which the petitioner, Frank Wilkinson, an administrator with the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, challenged his conviction under 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry for any person summoned as a witness by Congress. The petitioner's conviction was sustained in a 5–4 ruling, upholding a prior ruling in Barenblatt v. United States.
The petitioner was indeed summoned to testify before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating alleged Communist infiltration into basic industries and Communist Party propaganda activities. The petitioner refused to answer a question as to whether he was a member of the Communist Party, contending that the Subcommittee lacked legal authority to interrogate him and that its questioning violated his First Amendment rights. He was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192. The Court also, on February 27, 1961, denied Braden v. United States, a companion case appealing a similar 2 U.S.C. § 192 conviction.
The underlying activities of the FBI and government agencies later resulted in a case, Wilkinson v. FBI, in which it was revealed that the FBI believed the witness that provided the assertion of Wilkinson's association with the Communist Party was "unreliable and emotionally unstable."
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1960 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Potter StewartWrote the majority opinion
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
John HarlanJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Hugo BlackWrote a dissent
William BrennanWrote a dissent
Earl WarrenJoined a dissent
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- WilkinsonWitness, 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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (association)
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 27, 1961DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Wilkinson lost.
- Nov 17, 1960ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Georgia Northern 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
20 other argued cases since 1946 on legislative investigations: concerning internal security only, newest first.
- 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
- Dombrowski et al. v. Eastland et al.387 U.S. 82May 15, 1967 · 387 U.S. 82First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
- Gojack v. United States384 U.S. 702Jun 13, 1966 · 384 U.S. 702First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Degregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire383 U.S. 825Apr 4, 1966 · 383 U.S. 825First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Yellin v. United States374 U.S. 109Jun 17, 1963 · 374 U.S. 109First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Wheeldin et al. v. Wheeler373 U.S. 647Jun 3, 1963 · 373 U.S. 647First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Silber v. United States370 U.S. 717Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 717First Amendment5–27–2 band
- Grumman v. United States370 U.S. 288Jun 18, 1962 · 370 U.S. 288First Amendment5–27–2 band
- Russell v. United States369 U.S. 749May 21, 1962 · 369 U.S. 749First Amendment5–27–2 band
- Deutch v. United States367 U.S. 456Jun 12, 1961 · 367 U.S. 456First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Slagle et al. v. Ohio366 U.S. 259May 15, 1961 · 366 U.S. 259First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
- Braden v. United States365 U.S. 431Feb 27, 1961 · 365 U.S. 431First Amendment5–45–4 band
- McPhaul v. United States364 U.S. 372Nov 14, 1960 · 364 U.S. 372First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Raley et al. v. Ohio360 U.S. 423Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 423First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
- Barenblatt v. United States360 U.S. 109Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 109First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Uphaus v. Wyman, Attorney General of New Hampshire360 U.S. 72Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 72First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities359 U.S. 344May 4, 1959 · 359 U.S. 344First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Flaxer v. United States358 U.S. 147Dec 15, 1958 · 358 U.S. 147First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire, by Wyman, Attorney General354 U.S. 234Jun 17, 1957 · 354 U.S. 234First Amendment6–27–2 band
- 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.
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.