the affidavit in the past.'
The same situation exists here. Section 6 would not be a bar to the issuance or use of a passport if the plaintiffs renounced their present membership in the Communist Party. See also Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 95, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 90 L. Ed. 1252 (1946); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 71 U.S. 277, 18 L. Ed. 356 (1866).
In the instant case the restriction is not as severe as that in the Douds case, where the individuals were 'subject to possible loss of position.' Here, the plaintiffs are free to travel throughout the United States and most of the Western Hemisphere. The limitation on their right to travel is restricted to those countries which require a United States citizen to have a passport to enter their borders.
It was also stated in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 86-87, 81 S. Ct. 1357, 1404-1405, 6 L. Ed. 2d 625,
'The (Subversive Activities Control) Act is not a bill of attainder. It attaches not to specified organizations but to described activities in which an organization may or may not engage. * * * Present activity constitutes an operative element to which the statute attaches legal consequences * * *.'
It is clear to this Court that section 6 of the Act is not penal nor is it a bill of attainder. It is instead a legitimate exercise of the authority of Congress to regulate the travel of members of Communist organizations, based on the legislative determination that such travel would be inimicable and dangerous to the security of the United States.
We therefore hold that the Constitution does not prohibit the denial of passports to plaintiffs as present members of a Communist organization under section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.
Defendant's motions for summary judgment are granted as to each case.
The plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment in each case are denied.
The plaintiffs' requests for permanent restraining orders against the defendant are denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.