DOCSLIB.ORG

Cold War Supreme Court: Analysing the Change in Constitutional Interpretation Between Dennis V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cold War Supreme Court: Analysing the Change in Constitutional Interpretation between Dennis v. U.S. (1951) and Yates v. U.S. (1957) By Hayden Thorne A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in History Victoria University of Wellington 2018 1 Acknowledgement The greatest of thanks is due to my supervisor, A.Prof. Dolores Janiewski, whose support, guidance, and regular provision of chocolate made the whole process a great deal easier. This thesis would not have reached its potential without her gentle pushes to always do a better job. I am also deeply grateful to the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Humanities and Social Science’s Joint Research Committee, who supplied the funding for my archival research trip. This thesis would not have been possible without their assistance. The support from the university, and in particular the staff and students in the History department has been invaluable. Thanks are also due to my family and friends. My sister Bry for the regular coffee breaks which kept me sane, and Danielle for her editing and advice. To my parents, for always encouraging me to do what I love, and never suggesting that I stop studying and try to find a ‘real job’! Finally, and most importantly, to Chloe. Thank you for supporting and encouraging me; putting up with the late nights and early starts; never complaining about the lack of a stable income; for always pushing me to do more, and to do better. Without you, this thesis would never have been completed in its present form. 2 Contents Table of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Historiography ................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 1: Background and Red Scare Narrative ............................................................. 18 Legal Anti-Communism .............................................................................................. 18 Investigating Subversion ............................................................................................. 28 Cold War Red Scare .................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 2: The Influence of Legal Strategy ..................................................................... 35 The New York Trial .................................................................................................... 35 The Los Angeles Trial ................................................................................................. 45 Differences in legal strategies ...................................................................................... 56 Chapter 3: The Force of Circumstance............................................................................. 58 Red Scare Apex ........................................................................................................... 58 Context and the Smith Act ........................................................................................... 61 Context in Dennis and Yates ........................................................................................ 64 Hot or Cold War? ........................................................................................................ 67 Lawyers under Fire ...................................................................................................... 68 Context as a Factor ...................................................................................................... 70 Chapter 4: The Court and its Justices ............................................................................... 71 Upholding the Smith Act ............................................................................................. 72 Concurring .................................................................................................................. 78 Forceful Dissent .......................................................................................................... 82 Changes in the Court ................................................................................................... 86 Overturning Convictions ............................................................................................. 87 3 Black and Douglas....................................................................................................... 92 Status Quo Dissent ...................................................................................................... 93 Impact of Judicial Changes .......................................................................................... 95 The Aftermath ................................................................................................................. 98 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 104 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 108 Primary Sources ........................................................................................................ 108 Secondary Sources .................................................................................................... 112 4 Table of Abbreviations (Text) Abbreviation Term ABA American Bar Association ACLU American Civil Liberties Union CPUSA Communist Party of the United States of America FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation HUAC House Un-American Activities Committee NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NLG National Lawyers Guild Table of Abbreviations (Sources) CHS California Historical Society LARC Labor Archives and Research Center at San Francisco State University NC-ACLU American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California 5 Abstract During the early Cold War, America was gripped by an intense domestic Red Scare. This thesis explores how the United States Supreme Court dealt with the Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) and the issue of freedom of speech in the context of that Red Scare. In particular, this thesis focuses on the change in interpretation which occurred between the 1951 decision in Dennis v. United States, and the 1957 decision in Yates v United States. Dennis upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act, and upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) leaders. Yates overturned the convictions of a group of California CPUSA officials, and placed strict limitations on the use of the Smith Act in a drastic change in interpretation. This thesis aims to explore that change in interpretation by drawing on three different lines of reasoning: the impact of changes to the wider Cold War context, the impact of changes to the personnel making up the Supreme Court, and changes in legal strategy on behalf of the defendants in the two cases. To achieve this, the thesis draws on a wide range of sources, beginning with a discussion of existing literature, and moving to explore previously untapped sources from both a historic and a legal perspective. This includes looking at the records of law firms acting in both cases, analysing other Supreme Court opinions from the time, and drawing on more traditional historical sources like media coverage of various events. This thesis argues that, contrary to most existing scholarship, the change in interpretation is best explained by a multi-causal approach. The changes to the court’s makeup and changes to the context amongst which the cases occurred were only part of the reason for the change in interpretation. The impact of a change in legal strategy also played an important role in causing the Supreme Court’s change in interpretation. 6 Introduction “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. US, 1919.1 “Free speech – the glory of our system of government – should not be sacrificed on anything less than plain and objective proof of danger that the evil advocated is imminent” — William O. Douglas, Dennis v. United States, 1951.2 “There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions and fears subside, this or some later Court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high preferred place where they belong in a free society” — Hugo Black, Dennis v. United States, 1951.3 “Doubtlessly, dictators have to stamp out causes and beliefs which they deem subversive to their evil regimes. But governmental suppression of causes and beliefs seems to me to be the very antithesis of what our Constitution stands for. The choice expressed in the First Amendment
Recommended publications
  • NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E

    NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 1955 NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clement E. Vose, NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases, 6 W. Res. L. Rev. 101 (1955) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 1955) NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose ON MAY 3, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that neither federal nor state courts may issue injunctions to enforce racial re- strictive covenants.1 This decision reversed thirty years of history during which privately-drawn housing restrictions against Negroes had been en- forced by the courts of nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Be- cause precedent and the Restatement of Property,2 issued by the American Law Institute in 1944, favored judicial sanction of racial covenants, the Supreme Coures decision gave a surprising turn to legal development. On the other hand, when the Negroes' political power THE AuTHOR (AD., 1947, University of and legal skill is taken into Maine; M.A., 1949, PhD., 1952, University of account their victory in the Wisconsin) is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Western Reserve University.
  • Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire

    Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire

    ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Interviews conducted by: Judith S. Feigin, Esquire In 2011: March 3, March 21, April 20, May 9, May 23, June 6, June 20 July 18 and July 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .. i Oral History Agreements Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. iii Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. v Oral History Transcript of Interviews: Interview No. 1, March 3, 2011. 1 Interview No. 2, March 21, 2011. 29 Interview No. 3, April 20, 2011.. 63 Interview No. 4, May 9, 2011. 93 Interview No. 5, May 23, 2011. 122 Interview No. 6, June 6, 2011. 151 Interview No. 7, June 20, 2011. 177 Interview No. 8, July 18, 2011.. 206 Interview No. 9, July 25, 2011.. 236 Epitaph by Mr. Rosenthal, May 2012. A-1 Index. B-1 Table of Cases. C-1 Biographical Sketches Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. D-1 Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. D-3 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were recorded digitally or on cassette tape, and the interviewee and the interviewer have been afforded an opportunity to review and edit the transcript. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. © 2012 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit and lawyers, court staff, and others who played important roles in the history of the Circuit.
  • The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation As a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases

    The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation As a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases

    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2011 The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases José F. Anderson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases, 42 McGeorge L. Rev. 765 (2011) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jose Felipe Anderson ISSUE 4 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945914 The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jos6 Felip6 Anderson* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................... ..... 766 H. THE McGHEE V. SIPES BRIEF ................................... 774 A. McGhee Argument Against Judicial Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants .............................................. 776 B. History of Restrictive Covenants ............................. 777 C. Policy Arguments ......................................... 782 D. Deference to the UN Charter .......................................786 III. THE SHELLEY V. KRAEMER DECISION .............................. 787 IV. ANALYSIS .................................................. 789 V.
  • Columbia Law School Winter 2010

    Columbia Law School Winter 2010

    From the Dean On August 17, 2009, Dean David M. Schizer offered his welcoming remarks to the incoming class of J.D. and LL.M. students at Columbia Law School. An edited version of that address appears below. This is both an inspiring and a challenging time to come that excellence is measured in many different ways—in to law school. It is inspiring because the world needs you the pride you take in your work, in the reputation you more than ever. We live in troubled times, and many of develop among your peers, and, more importantly, in the great issues of our day are inextricably tied to law. Our the eyes of the people you have helped. But to my mind, financial system has foundered, and we need to respond excellence should not be measured in dollars. with more effective corporate governance and wiser The second fundamental truth to remember is that regulation. Innovation, competition, and free trade need integrity is the bedrock of any successful career. It is a to be encouraged in order for our economy to flourish. great source of satisfaction to know that you have earned Because of the significant demands on our public sector, your successes, that you didn’t cut any corners, and that our tax system needs to collect revenue efficiently and people trust you. fairly. Our dependence on imported fuel jeopardizes our As for the specifics of what career choices to make, national security, and our emission of greenhouse gases you are just beginning that journey. Most likely, there places our environment at risk.
  • The Maryland Board of Public Works

    The Maryland Board of Public Works

    The Maryland Board of Public Works The Maryland Board of Public Works A History Alan M. Wilner Hall of Records Commission, Department of General Services, Annapolis, MD 21404 Contents FOREWORD Vll PREFACE ix CHAPTER 1. An Overview of Early Policies: To 1825 CHAPTER 2. The First Board of Public Works and the Mania 1 for Internal Improvements, 1825-1850 CHAPTER 3. The Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851 11 CHAPTER 4. The Reign of the Commissioners: 1851-1864 25 CHAPTER 5. The Constitutional Convention of 1864 35 CHAPTER 6. The New Board: 1864-1920 51 CHAPTER 7. The Modern Board: 1920-1960 59 CHAPTER 8. The Overburdened Board: 1960-1983 79 CHAPTER 9. Epilogue 99 APPENDIX A. Commissioners of Public Works and Members of 123 the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 125 APPENDIX B. Guide to the Records of the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 INDEX 189 The Maryland Board of Public Works, A History, is available from the Maryland Hall of Records, P.O. Box 828, Annapolis, MD 21404. Copyright © 1984 by Alan M. Wilner. Foreword Alan M. Wilner's authorship of the history of the Board of Public Works continues a fine Maryland tradition of jurist-historians that includes Judge Carroll Bond's His- tory of the Court of Appeals and Judge Edward Delaplaine's biography of Governor Thomas Johnson. When I first read Judge Wilner's manuscript in the summer of 1981, it was im- mediately clear that it would provide an excellent introduction to the significant col- lection of archival materials at the Hall of Records relating to the history and work of the Board.
  • Civil Rights and the Role of the Solicitor General

    Civil Rights and the Role of the Solicitor General

    Twins at Birth: Civil Rights and the Role of the Solicitor General SETH P. WAXMAN* It is painful even today to contemplate the awful devastation wreaked upon this nation by the War Between the States. But like most cataclysms, the Civil War also gave birth to some important positive developments. I would like to talk with you today abouttwo such offspring ofthat war, and the extentto which, like many sibling pairs, they have influenced each other's development. The first child-the most well-known progeny of the Civil War-was this country's commitment to civil rights. The war, of course, ended slavery. But it did not-and could not--change the way Americans thought about and treated each other. Civil rights and their polestar, the principle of equal protection of the laws, encompass far more than the absence of state-sanctioned servitude. The Congresses and Presidents that served in the wake of the Civil War aimed at this more fundamental and difficult goal. They brought about ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. And they enacted a variety of laws designed to enforce the guarantees of those Amendments. But as history shows so agonizingly, it takes much more than well-meaning laws--or even constitutional amendments-to reweave the social fabric of a nation. In the first place, a law that is merely on the books is quite different from one that is actually enforced. And what is more, a law that is enacted will not necessarily even remain on the books. Under the principle ofjudicial review established in Marbury v.
  • A TALE of TWO HANDS: One Clapping; One Not

    A TALE of TWO HANDS: One Clapping; One Not

    A TALE OF TWO HANDS: One Clapping; One Not Burt Neuborne* My thanks to the editors of the Arizona State Law Journal for organizing this symposium celebrating the 100th anniversary of Judge Learned Hand’s brilliant and courageous, if unsuccessful, effort in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten1 to slow down the repressive train that was running amok over Americans who vigorously spoke out against America’s entry into World War I. While many have chronicled the major Supreme Court cases from Schenck to Gitlow failing to protect free speech during and after World War I,2 they usually don’t go beneath the surface of the Supreme Court to plumb the massive wave of repression that swept the nation in the summer and fall of 1917, fanned by jingoism, fear of immigrants, war fever, fear of communism, and President Woodrow Wilson’s streak of fanaticism.3 Convinced that he was doing God’s work in committing the nation to a war to make the world safe for democracy, Wilson, a baffling figure who was an appalling racist, an economic reformer, an idealistic internationalist, and the first President to appoint a Jew to the Supreme Court,4 had no qualms about * Norman Dorsen Professor in Civil Liberties, New York University School of Law. I’m sorry that we lost my longtime friend and colleague, Norman Dorsen, who died on July 1, 2017, before he had a chance to join in the festivities. Much of what I say in this essay emerged from almost fifty years of conversations with Norman. We would have enjoyed writing this one together.
  • Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation

    Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation

    California Law Review VOL. 82 MARCH 1994 No. 2 Copyright © 1994 by California Law Review, Inc. Unitariness and Independence: Solicitor General Control over Independent Agency Litigation Neal Devinst With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, andprovides the Court with a trustworthy litiga- tor to explicate the government'sposition. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decisionmaking. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the Supreme Court: so long as there are independent agencies, Congress should allow independent agency self-representation whenever the Solicitor General is unwilling to advocate the agency's interests. Thus, when disagreements between the Solicitor General and an independent agency are irreconcilable,the independent agency should be allowed to go its own way. The author concludes by connecting the issue of Solicitor General-independentagency relations to the largerdebate over the unitary executive, arguing that the unitary executive is the only theory which sup- ports Solicitor General control of independent agency litigation. In other Copyright 0 1994 California Law Review, Inc. t Professor of Law, Lecturer in Government, College of William and Mary. B.A. 1978, Georgetown University; J.D. 1982, Vanderbilt Law School. Thanks to Dawn Darkes, Brook Edinger, and Wendy Watson for research assistance; to those current and former government officials who shared their time and insights with me; and to participants at an Emory Law School faculty workshop, participants at the Executive Branch Interpretation Symposium at the Benjamin N.
  • The Board of Directors, the Struggle with Anti-Communism, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn Douglas Colin Post

    The Board of Directors, the Struggle with Anti-Communism, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn Douglas Colin Post

    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 11-1995 Partisanship within the American Civil Libterties Union: the Board of Directors, the struggle with anti-communism, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn Douglas Colin Post Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Post, Douglas Colin, "Partisanship within the American Civil Libterties Union: the Board of Directors, the struggle with anti- communism, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn" (1995). Master's Theses. Paper 803. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Partisanship within the American Civil Liberties Union: the Board of Directors, the Struggle with Anti-communism, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, 1938-1940. By Douglas Colin Post. Master of Arts in history. University of Richmond. May 1996. Professor R. Barry Westin, thesis director. The American Civil Liberties Union and an overwhelming majority of its historians have maintained that the organization has devoted its efforts solely to the protection of the Bill of Rights. This thesis examines that claim, focusing on the events that culminated in the expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the Union's Board of Directors. Relying primarily on the organization's own publications and archives, as well as several insiders' accounts, the analysis concludes that the issue of communism increasingly polarized the Board and, in a gross violation of its nonpartisan commitment to the defense of civil liberties, led ultimately to the Communist Flynn's removal.
  • Civil Liberties Enforcement and the New Deal State

    Civil Liberties Enforcement and the New Deal State

    CIVIL LIBERTIES ENFORCEMENT AND THE NEW DEAL STATE Laura M. Weinrib In May 1937, just one month after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act,1 the American Civil Liberties Union issued a report on the merits of judicial review. Its subject was only incidentally the Court’s persistent invalidation of New Deal economic legislation, which prompted President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill- fated Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. Instead, the ACLU’s report— prepared by Osmond Fraenkel, a member of the Board of Directors and the ACLU’s Supreme Court litigator—addressed the question “how far the Court has been a defender of civil liberties.” To that end, it evaluated the Court’s record in civil liberties cases since the nineteenth century.2 It concluded that the Court had “more often failed to protect the Bill of Rights than preserve it,” and that those decisions favorable to civil liberties involved “less important issues.” Still, the Court had begun to protect “personal rights” (a term encompassing privacy, bodily integrity, and expressive freedom) more vigilantly as a result of its “widening conception” of the due process clause.3 As Fraenkel reflected in comments to the ACLU Board, “so long as we believe in safeguarding the rights of minorities, the power of review is essential to protect these rights.”4 The report was poorly timed to influence debate. By May, the prospects for the president’s court-packing plan were dim, and the ACLU’s eleventh-hour contribution to the discussion garnered relatively little notice. 1 NLRB v.
  • !Y[Wlal VI Cl LAN C5 ! the Story of Civil Liberty 19374938

    !Y[Wlal VI Cl LAN C5 ! the Story of Civil Liberty 19374938

    !y[WlAL VI Cl LAN c5 ! The Story of Civil Liberty 19374938 Tear gas-and not only in Jersey City! American Civil Liberties Union 31 Union Square West New York City (Copyrighted) 204 June, 1938 CONTENT’S Ihkv of the Year ................................... 3 Balance Sheet of Civil Liberties. ........................ 7 Centers of Repression ............................... 13 The Issues Pending .................................. 14 I&m-d of the Year, 1937-38 ........................... 17 The Courts .......................... 17 Laws ................................. I I II 21 Senate Committee on Civil Liberties ..... Labor ............................ : 1: 1 : 11 1 $ Picketing ................................... 29 Injunctions 31 Mob Violence’::1:1111:11::::::::1:1:::1:1::. 32 Jersey City ................................. 35 Prosecutions .................. 37 Political Prisoners .............. 1111lIIIIIIIII 37 Police Lawlessness 40 The Right of Assembly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 : : : 42 Aliens ..................................... 44 The Rights of Communists ..................... 47 The Rights of Nazis and Klansmen ............. 49 Negroes .................................... 50 Censorship .................................. 5 2 Freedom of the Press ......................... 57 Freedom in the Schools and Colleges .............. 58 Colonies ................................... 62 Fingerprinting ..... .*, ........................ 64 Professional Patriots ........................... 64 The Program Ahead. ...............................
  • Seminal Issues As Viewed Through the Lens of the Progressive Case

    Seminal Issues As Viewed Through the Lens of the Progressive Case

    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2005 Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of the Progressive Case David Rudenstine Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] James R. Schlesinger Norman Dorsen Robert E. Cattanach Brady Williamson See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Rudenstine, James R. Schlesinger, Norman Dorsen, Robert E. Cattanach, Brady Williamson, Frank Tuerkheimer, Howard Morland, Gary Milhollin & Anthony Lewis, Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of the Progressive Case, 26 Cardozo Law Review 1337 (2005). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/168 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Authors David Rudenstine, James R. Schlesinger, Norman Dorsen, Robert E. Cattanach, Brady Williamson, Frank Tuerkheimer, Howard Morland, Gary Milhollin, and Anthony Lewis This article is available at LARC @ Cardozo Law: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/168 TRANSCRIPT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND A FREE PRESS: SEMINAL ISSUES AS VIEWED THROUGH THE LENS OF THE PROGRESSIVE CASE' WELCOME David Rudenstine^ It is wonderful having you all here for this very special twenty-fifth anniversary commemoration of this historic case involving the publication of the article by The Progressive magazine.