�鶹��ýIOS

Legal Principle at Issue

Did the state of New Hampshire violate Sweezy’s constitutional rights by compelling him to answer questions about his political beliefs and the content of his university lecture?

Action

The Court ruled in favor of Sweezy, holding that the state's actions violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court expressed concern over government interference in university teaching and scholarship, and academic freedom was identified as a "special concern of the First Amendment," marking one of the first times the Court explicitly endorsed this concept. While the decision avoided a direct ruling on the constitutionality of the state's Subversive Activities Act, it struck down its application in this case as overly broad and invasive. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence especially stressed that arbitrary investigations threaten the essential liberties protected by due process, tying it closely to academic freedom as a key societal value.

Facts/Syllabus

Paul M. Sweezy, a professor at the University of New Hampshire, was interrogated by the New Hampshire Attorney General about his suspected affiliations with the Communist Party. After refusing to answer questions about his lectures and writings, the Attorney General filed a petition to compel Sweezy to respond. The district court granted the petition, but Sweezy refused to answer. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition unconstitutionally invaded Sweezy’s rights of expression and association. 

Importance of Case

The Court’s plurality decision in Sweezy v. New Hampshire accepted the notion of academic freedom, recognizing its footing in constitutional law. Highlighting the idea that “scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust,” the plurality reasoned that faculty must be able to “feel free to inquire, to study and to evaluate” and “to gain new maturity and understanding” without fear of consequences.

Sweezy’s legacy and impact on academic freedom remain active. Ten years after the plurality decision, the Supreme Court decided Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), which identified academic freedom as “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” The Court reasoned, “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not just the teachers involved.”