# Archie Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 9, 1964 · 334 F.2d 488

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450175

## Case

- **Full name:** Archie BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 9, 1964
- **Citations:** 334 F.2d 488
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Barnes
- **Judges:** Duniway, Hamley, Chambers, Barnes, Jertberg, Merrill, Koelsch, Browning, Duni-Way
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450175

## Opinion text

BARNES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I concur with Judge Chambers, both in his agreement with Judge Merrill’s opinion, and in his dissent therefrom, as well as his dissent with Judge Hamley on the jury question. I believe that the delicate “balance struck by Congress comports with the dictates of the Constitution.” The “wide scope of congressional power to keep from the channels of commerce that which would hinder and obstruct such commerce” is not, to me, violative of § 504 here considered.
While a police officer, or a congressional employee, under investigation, has a “right” to invoke the Fifth Amendment —he has no rjght to hold a particular job thereafter. ^ Appellant herein had a right to be a certain kind of member in the Communist Party, but has no “right” to hold office in labor unions, which office directs the labor union’s policy, once Congress has seen fit to refuse him such office holding. The congressional right to protect the full flow of interstate commerce must itself be protected ; not at all odds, but when reasonably exercised, as I feel it here was. In this I disagree with the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450175. Public record. Not legal advice.