# Appendix — Whitehill v. Elkins > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386412_0102%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1967 - **Citation:** 389 U.S. 54 ## Text CS * Filed: September 8, 1966. : APPENDIX % - Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge ts THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUBF | ‘Gee For THe District oF “MaryLanD y at Civil Action No. 17564 | | we 7. Howarp JOSEPH WHITEHILL, JR., . if Plointif, | ‘V5. . Wirson ELxrs, President, University of Maryland; Boarp or Recents, University of Maryland; J. Jerome F'RaMP- .. TON, JR, President, State Board of Education, » : ; Defendants: Bef ° re: ‘ fF : Sopetorr and. Writer, Circuit Judges, and THomsEN, Chief Judge. ‘Sanford Jay Rosen, Esq., Arnold_ M. Weiner, Esq, Mrs. Elsbeth Levy Bothe, Joseph S. Kaufman, Ksq., and Lee M. Miller, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff. f ‘Thomas B. Finan, Esq., Attorney General of Maryland, ” ' * ‘Robert C. Murphy, Esq., Deputy Attorney General of « Maryland, Loring E. Hawes, Esq., and Julius A. Romano, . Esq.,. Assistant Attorneys General of Maryland, Attor- neys for Defendants. a 9a ; _ Opinion sii Winter, Circuit Judge. baer Circuit Judge: “This action, brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. s. C.A. § 1983, and invoking the civil rights and declaratory i judgment jurisdiction of this Court, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343(3), 2201 and -2202, seeks to ‘enjoin the oath requirements of the Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949, 8A Anno- _tated Code of Maryland (1964 Ed.), Article 85A, §§ 1, et seq. exacted of public employees as.a condition precedent to y public employment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss admits ~ the facts well pleaded, which are as follows: Plaintiff i is a member of the faculty ‘of The J ohns Hop- » - kins University, teaching creative writing, an. author, and a practicing member of the religious organization ‘known as the Society 6f Friends. Plaintiff was engaged as a visiting lecturer in English at the University of Maryland, College - Park, Maryland,.for the academic year of 1966-1967. ‘In - J uly, 1966, a formal ‘contract embodying the conditions of ‘his employment was forwarded to plaintiff. He was also ‘ forwarded a document entitled “Certification of Applicant for Public Employment,” which contained a loyalty oath. . Plaintiff was advised that he must sign it as a condition - precedent to his employment. Plaintiff executed his em- ployment contract, a declined to execute the loyalty oath. '. 1 While this opinion uses “the popular parlance “oath, ” tech- * nically plaintiff was required to make a written statement of his loyalty, under the penalties of perjury prescribed by 3 Annotated » Codé of Maryland (1957 Ed.), Art. 27, § 439. The document itself “was. entitled “Certification of Applicant for Public Employment” aii -and the operative words were “I, = :... do’ hereby certify * * *.” Article 39 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights . guarantees the right of any person to affirm, rather than swear, ~ agreeably to his religious beliefs, and 1 Annotated Code of Mary- cae yy . Sa land it Ed. ‘ — 1, §9 ‘implements this a ? een rt Se ne : * NG LORE IIE LL TEL LO OPAL LIE II LES LEI OVE TINE 3a Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge He was immediately advised by an authorized ‘represen- _ tative. of the University of Maryland that that educational . institution would not accept his services without the loyalty oath. first having been executed. by him. Plaintiff declined - to sign this oath and has now brought this suit, seeking 9 : declaration that the oath sought to be exactéd from: him was unconstitutional and seeking to enjoin defendants from preventing the consummation of his contract with the Uni- ° versity of: Maryland because of his failure to’execute the oath.? Pursuant to prayer in the complaint, a -statutory three-judge court was immediately convened, 28 U.S.C.A. - §§ 2281 and 2284, and the case heard as prompey as pos- sible, inasmuch as plaintiff's employment was~* to begin September 19, 1966. The oath sought to be exacted from. plaintft is as Hollow: Eee “CERTIFICATION OF Aprticant ror: PuBLic Emptoy- MENT Required by- Law (Art. 85A, Paragraph 13, An, “notated ae of Maryland, AT) | “y, _.. do hereby (Print N ame—including middle ‘initial) certify that I am not engaged in one way or another > ‘in the attempt to overthrow the Government of the ‘United States, or the State of Maryland, or any po- litical subdivision of either of them, by force or vio- ‘lence. : a = a ee ree . #Ineluded among ‘the defendants is J. Jerome Frampton, Jr., president of the Maryland State Board of Education. This board has no power with regard to the University of Maryland, the gov- .. ernment of which is vested in its Board of Regents. 7 Annotated Code of Maryland (1965 Ed.), Article 77 § 249(e): The motion ° to dismiss will. be granted as to this defendant for meee % joinder. . a 4a Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge “T further certify that I understand the aforegoing statement is made subject to the penalties of perjury prescribed i in Article 27, Section 439 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 edition ). e : : "Date | Paenerate “-(N ame——ineluding middle initial) In his.complaint plai iff alleges that the lovaiey oath is unconstitutional, becguse it infringes on his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, is so vague as to deny him due process, .and equal protection of the laws, and consti- tutes a bill of attainder against him. Additionally, plaintiff obliquely alleged that the oath would deny him freedom of religion, but in-argument plaintiff made no contention: that any specific religious belief held by him was counter to the certification that he was asked to make. ono ad _ Article 85A of the Annotated Code of Maryland was ~ enacted in its entirety in 1949 apd has never been amended. Of the provisions pertinent to this case, §10 renders in- eligible for employment by the state any person who is a “subversive” person as defined in this Article. Section 13 required state employees who were such on June 1, 1949, the effective date of the Act, to make a: written statement, subject to the penalties of perjury, that he or she was not a “subversive” person as defined: in Artigle 85A, and $11. requires every department, board, commission or other agency of the State of Maryland or any political subdivi- sion thereof in the a4ppointment of new employees,-to es- tablish procedures, by rules, regulations or otherwise, to 5a Opinion of Winter, Circujt Judge - ascertain that any employee “including teachers and other employees of any’ public educational institution in this State” is not a “subversive” person as defined in the Article, _ The Attorney General of Maryland, in‘reliance upon these sections, has expressed - the view that persons rendering occasional instructional services to the University of Mary- land as part of the formal instruction program are required — __ to. execute’ the loyalty oath pledge. 45 Opinions Attorney ‘ /. : / € f - General 187 (1960). : 3 The operative words “subversive person” are defined by §1, which reads: _ : | ' “Subversive person’ means any person who com- “Inits, attempts to commit, or aids ‘in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid ae the commission of any act intended to overthrow, de- stroy or alter, or to assist in thé overtlirow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the govern- ment of the United States, or of the State of Maryland; or any political subdivision of either of them, by revo- _ lution, force, or violence; or who.is a member of sub- “ versive organization or a foreign subversive organi- zation.” : Because one is a “subversive person” if he is a member . | of a “subversive organization” or a “foreign subversive . organization,” the definitions of those terms, as set forth in §1 of Article 85A, should also be stated. They are: _ “ Subversive organization’ means any organization ‘which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or fee 6a | = S | De . Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge. teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or ad- i vocate, abet,” advise, or teach activities intended to ia ‘ overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the over- " throw, destruction or. alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the State of Maryland, or of any political subdivision’ of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence. © “ ae a ae 4 9 Opinion of Winter, Circuit: Judge * the. first substantive issue we must decide is whether the. oath is‘so broad, vague and indefinite that. plaintiff has been denied due process of law. This is so because plain- lated if the oath is valid undér the due process clause; they.have been violated only if the oath will not withstand the due process test. Baggett. v. Bullitt, 377 U. 8. 360 (1964); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.°S. 11° (1966).* Of “This Act threatens the cherished freedom of association, pro- tected by the First Amendment, made applicable to thé States through the Fourteenth Amendment. (* * * citing. ) piper aR Pry : 2 * -* * P a when the:end _ “A daw which applies to membership wifhout the: "speci c intent’ to further the-tHegal aims of-the o ization infringes . unnecessarily on- protected freedoms, * * *” Jd at Pp.-18-19. - Sha nk xD th : _. of the, United States, Gerende v. B 8a oe ~ Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge Md. 462, 71 A.2d 474 (1950) ; and Hammond v. Froakiela, 194 Md. 487, 71 A.2d 482 (1950). One of the parties in the Shub case sought further i in the Supreme Court — of Supervisors of Elec- tions, 341 U. S. 56. (1951). Technically, the oath found to’be ‘valid in the Gerende case was the oath gequired of candi- dates for election by 4 15 of Article 85A, ‘while the oath to which plaintiff objects is the oath required by §§11 and 13 . of Article 85A of state employees and appointed officers, but, since the oaths are @dentical in both situations, what the Supreme Court said in the Gerende case is determina- tive. here.” The Court affirmed the degisiauof the Maryland ~ Court of Appéals in Shub v. Simpson, supra, oe eek “We read this decision ta hold that to obtain a, place _ on a Maryland ballot a candidate need only make. oath that he is not a person who is engaged ‘in one way _ or- another in the attempt to overthrow the govern- ment by force or violence, and that he is not know- ingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt. —— Md, ——,,‘at ——, 76 A.2d at 338. | % At the bar of this Court the iieney General of the ‘State of Maryland declared that he would advise the - proper authorities to.accept an affidavit in these terms as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under _ these circumstances and with this understanding, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Arey is af- firmed. ” Id. at 56-57. re Pp ee, the Supreme Court i in » Gerkade specifically approved 3 ~ . of an oath that one is “not a person who is engaged i in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government. PRP chp eee DAG Pee PORES eS “ a oe ’ . P é = aa 9a a ¢ ° ° * . Opinion of Winter, Circuit Jiidge —_ by foree or violence,” and that “he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt.” ___ The oath in the case at bar is precisely in the form upheld — _ by: the Supreme Court, except that ‘it eliminates the part’ of the oath that-he who makes it also certifies that he is “not knowingly a member of. an organization engaged in - such an attempt [overthrow of. the government by force or violence].” In argument we were told that the latter cer- tification was eliminated from the form of oath at the in- stance of the Attorney General on May 3, 1966, following the decision in Elfbrandt v. Russell, supra [decided April — 18, 1966]. In the light of this flat holding in Gerende, we need only determine whether Gerende has been subse- . -quently overruled or modified to decide plaintiff’s ‘first — ‘contention. Plaintiff asserts that Gerende’s authority has: , \ been impaired b “Baggett v. Bullitt and. Elfgrandt v. . Russell, suprav ¢ | me ere supra, loyalty oaths of the State of Washington, one applicable to teachers and the other ap- _ plicable to all state employees, including teachers, were held invalid for vagueness. The oath réquired of all: state _ employees, ‘including teachers, is. the ‘significant oath for PRR on pe EF aoa: 2B" : oa nt “ce 2 aT AS oe *. Sit las Slates Sota Lemetiene FRET Me EA # LP 0 EEO AEE, 9 Diet Ba pager a Sieh nt iii ae eS CE alla = . fe . , . 7 ; . ; - he 15a o 7 nay Concurring Opinion of Sobel, Circuit Judge . American Csiminiaiteatiane ASs’n. V. , Dowds, 339. U. S. 382 _ (1950) ; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 (1952); . _ and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, —— F. S. —— (W.D. N.Y. 1966), prob. jur. noted, 384 U. 8. 998 (1966). Speicer - v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), is not to the contrary as ans the discussion of that case in Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U. S. 36, 53-56 (1961), demonstrates. Under existing law, we do not find the oath tendered hay to plaintiff invalid. We conclude that the ‘complaint should be dismissed. The Clerk will enter an ‘order to that effect. aie ieee et (see separate concurrence) ¢ ees aeetias United States Circuit ce "Stiebanle L. Worn Pe United States Circuit ynege ee * Roszen C. Nabiinks 7 Chief Judge, United States District Court : fort the District of Maryland, Se Sonsrorr, Circuit Judge, concurring: : ' * In joining my brethren. in the disposition of this case I wish to add a brief statement of my reasons. 2 . Whether the ritual of an oath-or affirmation of loyalty, with or without sanctions for perjury, is a wise or effec- tive means to the unquestionably legitiniate end of protect- . ing the state against subversion i is not the issue before us. The question is the legality of the particular requirement ” demanded of the See: its desicobaliy, * . ” . ’ ° ory - » 4 - . e ‘ » ‘ —— PTE ES RAT ge 42 ON? Om 2 ER RR ean: ORM fe te OPT 16a sik aaa - Ss Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circwt Judge @« 1 am inclined to agree with the plaintiff that the. pre- _seribed oath or statement is not to be judged in isolation, ‘ but in conjunction with the sfatute, for in the absence of a statute, there would be no authority for demanding any _. Statement “under penalty of perjury.” If it were not for - Gerende v. Board of Supervisors; 341 U. S. 56 (1951), I. ~ would not lightly dismiss ‘the plaintiff’s argument that the ‘ reference to Article 85a, with its language about “subver- sive persons” and “subversive organizations,” has. a:-ma- terial bearing on the question before us, even though the oath itself does not expressly embody these terms. But the question comes to us freiglited with a history, and the rolef the statute in respect to the oath has heen authori- « _tatively interpreted. . _ -In Gerende the Court upheld an oath which was in tetfinn -” more comprehensive than the one before us. The Court : i embraced what it regarded as a restrictive interpretation of the Ober Law by the Maryland Court of Appeals, and . upon that premise,.and upon the condition that the Attor- ney General would advise the state authorities to accept as sufficient’ an affidavit in the narrow terms stipulated by the court, sustained the statute and the affidavit pursuant thereto. - Whatever we might otherwise have thought, the Sapreme Court has. authoritatively decided that the broader | language of the statute, which concefledly would make it '. “invalid, see Baggett v. Bullitt, 377.U. S. 360 (1964), is not ‘controlling, but the less comprehensive language of the oath, as directed by the Attorney General, ‘governs. | The plaintiff maintains first that the Supreme Court was mistakeh in its analysis of the decision of the Maryland bee of Appeals i in Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177, 76 A. 2d . . PUGET AROS DIRE AT OH CALE IE Marto eS amen FF AOR PI AD a 17a Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circuit Judge ; sat 332° (1950), and he further points to the logic employed in —_ the later holdings in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra,-and Elf- brandt v. Russell, 384 U. 8. 11 (1966), in support of ‘his thesis that the Court must sooner or later disavow Gerende. I acknowledge the force of the plaintiff’s arguments as to the doubts concerning the present status of Gerende created by the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. . _ It may well be that ‘on renewed consideration the Supreme Court would today hold the statute and the oath, even as recently further modified by the Attorney General, too vague to meet constitutional standards. “However, it is one thing for a lower court to project an estimate of the future course of Supreme Court decisions on a point not theretofore “specifically ruled upon; it is quite another to assume that an earlier decision of the Supreme Court on the very question now pending before the ‘inferior tribunal has been overruled’ sub silentio, Judicial discipline _ requires that such assumptions be not too freely made, especially when the Supreme Court seems to have been careful: to avoid an outright overruling. If Gerende is ripe for final dispatch, the task,is for the Supreme Court, not a subordinate court. wee ses eh 7] Keyishian v. Board of Regents, —— F. Supp. —— (W. D.» N. Y. Jan. 5, 1966), prob. juris. noted, 384 U. S. 998 (1966), desided prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Elfbrandt; may be distinguishable from the case at bar. There is no New York equiva- lent. to the “loyalty pledge” ‘subject to penalties for perjury, that is before us today. Furthermore, as the three-judge district court . emphasized, New York State, in requiring of a prospective employee’ . the assuravice that he has complied with the-laws under attack in Keyishwan, affords the applicant an opportunity to be heard > ’ should he be in doubt“as to the coverage of the statutes. * we s ae ‘18a . Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circuit Juge Thus, - ‘despite the doubjs engendered by the course of subsequent adjudications, I think the contentions made by the plaintiff here are more properly addressed to the Su- -preme Court. I am obliged, therefore, to join, in today’s order of dismissal rather than Anticipate the abandonment of Gerende. : a | _Smon E., SoseLorr U. 8. Circuit Judge 7 re [ | % hi e ‘. re . a “s 2 : r s . ? OE ELLE FRE PLM. PP ER eee es Bee or tes ES a wenden tae:uean wane ce Ay tes _ - 198 | Order t Is’ rae ance | j pr faa e: UNITED STATES DISTRICT count ee ‘ For tHe Disrricr’ OF Maryann - Civil Action No. 11364 gla ‘ct Mo e “a3 . . - $ a ; ; Roszzx’ C. THOMSEN eee cee | _ Chief Judge. ; . - United States District Court ° . 7 for the District of Maryland 4 Pee Ae : od p sere", Subversive Activities ‘Act’ ‘of. 1949 ~ “Article S5A Kataniiiie CopE oF MaryLanp (1957) SEDITION AND SUBVERSIVE: AcTIVITIES § % Definitions For the purposes of this article: “Organization” means an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation, fund, — club, society, committee, association, political party, or any group of persons, whether es incorporated, ‘perma- . nently or temporarily associated . together for joint action, | ' or advancement of views on an subject or subjects. . . “Subversive organization” _means any Dpcanization 7 j which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or ‘teaches, E "Or & purpose ef which is to engage in or advocate, abet, ‘advise, or teach activities intended to pverthfow, destroy or alter, or to -assist. in the- overthrow, destruction or 7 | alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of a the United States, or of the State of Maryland; or of any “4 political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force, ’ , or violence. - $k st é Be x teeth ete “Foreign subversive organization” means any organiza- '~ tion directed, dominated .or controlled directly or. indirectly ‘by a foreign government which engages in or advocates, - ; abets, advises, or teaches, °or-a purpose of which is to - : engage in or to advocate, abet, advise, or teach, activities--.. intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the . overthrow, destruction or alteration of the constitutional | form.of the government of, the .United States, or of the Pee er ees ee -2la ots a | Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 194 State of Maryland, or of any political subdivision of either of them, and to establish in place thereof any form of _ governmerit the direction and control of. which is to be *” vested in, or exercised by pr under, the domination or con- -trol of any foreign goverhment, organization, or individual ; but does not and shall not be construed to megn an organi- zation the bona: fide purpose’ of which is: to promote world - peace ‘by alliances or unions with other governments or world federations, unions or governments to be effected through constitutional means. i me 4 “Foreign government’: means the government #f any — a country or nation other than the government of the United — _ States of America or of one of the states thereof. 4 “Subversive person” means’ any pefson who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or ‘advo- cates, abets, advises or teaches by any means - person n to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the co ission of ’ any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, of/to assist inthe overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the consti- *’ tutional form of the government of the United States, or ,of the State of Maryland, or any political subdivision’ of . either of them, by revolution, $2705, SF Vidhinee, or who is a member of a subversive organization or a foreign sub- _versive org#nization. (An. Code, 1951, §1; 1949, ch. 86, $1) os, : ‘ gs ee SepiTion* $2. Unlawful acts. . ' It shall be a felony for any person knowingly. and wil- fully ‘to: oes He 4 5 . oe . . » .- e ” s as e ‘ ue Maryland Subversivi Activities Act of 1949 | (a) Commit,. salieneait to commit, or aid in the commission -_ of any-act. intended to overthrow; destroy or alter, ‘ or to assist in the over ; destruction or alteration of, the ee constitutional form of the government of the United States, or.of the State of Maryland, ‘or any political subdivision . . of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence ; or " (b) Advocate abet, advise, or teach by any means any - person to commit, attempt to.commit, or assist in the com. mission‘ of ‘any such. act. under such. circumstances as to st United States, or of the State of Maryl d or of. any | political subdivision of eithe of them; or constitute a clear and present danger to ge of the ‘(e) Conspire with one or more persons to commit any ‘such act; or aes a dd a aie ee ae (d) Assist in the diiieetlain or participate in » the man- - agement Or to contribute’ to‘the support of any subversive organization or. foreign subversive organization knowing. _ said organization jo be a’ subversive organization . or. a foreign subversive organization ; or (e) Destroy any books, tecords or files, or secrete any funds in this State of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization, meres said organiza- _, tion to be such. Any person who shall ad convisted by a eourt of com- petent jurisdiction of violating any of the provisions of this section shall be fined not more than twenty thousand dollars, ($20, 000); or ifmprisoned for not more than twenty (20). years,: or both, at the: discretion of the court. ean Code, 1951, $25 1949, ch. 96 $2.) 28a ae é Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949 $3. Membership in subversive organization. ie ._ It shall bea felony for any person after June 1, 1949 to become, ov after September 1, 1949 to remain a: member of ' «& subversive organization or a foreign subversive organi- zation knowing said organization to be ‘provided. The Attorney General shall include in his budget estimates, adequate ‘moneys for the printing and distri-. bution of the said. reports, and. for all other expenses -of administering: this article. To the extent that his time may not be required in his duties under this article, the special ___ assistant attorney. general shall. be_available for and-per- = : ciate form such other Auties as may be assigned to him by the — Attorney General. - (An. Code, dhesat $8; _ ch. 86, , § 8.) $9. Duty of judges as to. grand jury. ae | . The judge of the. eriminal court of each ‘county, sl of Baltimore City, when in his discretiori it appears ap- propriate, or when. informed. by the State’s attorney-that ————— = . there is information or evidence’ of the character described _ : ‘in §6 of this article to be consideted - -by the grand jury, . shall charge the grand jury to inquire into violations of -. i... this article for the purpose of ‘proper action, and further to: inquire generally into - the purposes, processes and - activities and any other matters affecting communism or any related or other subversive organizations, associations, ke groups or persons., Any grand jury charged by the court: as provided herein shall-not later than the conclusion of its term of servic#prepare a written report, separate from all _¢ other matters considered by said grand jury, of its findings . = ‘the subjects placed before it-under the requirements of this article, provided, however, such report shall not. a HAs See 3Ta- ‘Maryland Subversive Activities Act-of-1949 “i charge any residents of this State a“ being disloyal un-. less. they shall have been indicted under- the provisions of . _ this ‘article or other provisions of the criminal law of this _-0r some other jurisdiction. (An. Code, 1951, $9; 1949, ch. + 86, $9.) 4 prahas. | Loyatry. ; 7 “$10. Subversive person ‘not eligible for governmental office. - LER : ! ry - No subversive person, as defined in this article, shall be a eligible for employment in, or appointment. to: any office, . or any position of trust oF profit in the ‘government of, or in the administration of. the busifiess. of this State, or of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this State. (An. Code, 1951, § 10; 1949, ch. 86, § 10.) sce SIL “Rules-and ‘regulations to dete>mine loyalty—In gen- ’ eral. Every person and every board, commission, council, de- . partment; court or other agency of the State of Maryland or.any political subdivision thereof, who or which appoints or employs or supervises, in any manner the Appointment or gployment of public officials or employees shall estab- lish by rules, regulations or otherwise, procedures designed to ascertain before ally person, including teachers.and other | employees of any public educational institution in this State, is appointed or employed, that he or she as the ease may be, is not a subversive. person, and that there. are no _ -Teasonable grounds to believe such persons are subvergjve : persons. In the event such reasonable grounds exist, he or she as the case may be shall not be appointed or em- © . - "98a Maryland idhibicaien Activities Act of. 1949 4 ployed. te securing any facts necessary to ascertain. the information herein required, the applicant shall ‘be re- quired to sign’a written- statement containing answers to * such inquiries as may be material, which statement shall contain notice that it is subject to the penalties of perjury. 8 .- (An, Code, 1951, $11; 1949, ch. 86, § 11.) § 12. ‘Same—Not applicable to laborers: The inquiries preseribed 4 in §11, “other than the written _ statement to be executed-by an applicant for employment, - shall not be required as a prerequisite to the employment - of any persons in the classification of laborers in any case . in which the employing authority shall in’his or its dis- | - eretion determine, and by tule -or regulation specify the _. reasons why, the nature of the work to be performed’ is - such that employment of persons’ as to whom there. may be - reasonable grounds to believe that’ they are subversive - persons: as defined in this article will not be dangerous to - _ the health of the citizens or the security of the governments _of the United States, the State of Maryland, or any political “subdivision thereof. (An. Code, 1951, $12; 1949, ch. 86, $12), ie cha a she 7 § 13. Statement of EL cea every person, who on June 1, 1949. shall be i in the employ > of the State of Maryland or. of any political subdivision ‘ thereof, other than those now holding elective office shall -— _. ‘be required on or before August 1, 1949, to make a ‘written : wh ai’ which shall contain notice that it is subject to the penalties of perjury, that he or she is not a subversive’ - area as defined 1 in this article, ‘namely, any person who i ; 29a Maryland Suioersive, Acpfoiie Act of 1949 -* é . eontioie, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, —_ a. whose employment is subject to the provisions 156 of the Baltimore City Charter and: by every person and — or advocates, abets, advises. or teachés by any means any ~ « pérson to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the com-. mission of ayact intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United | States, or of the State of Maryland, or any political sub- — division of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence ;- or who-is a member of a ‘subversiv organization or a for- eign subversive organization, as méré fully defined inthis -. _ article. Such statement shall be prepared and. éxecution "required by the State Commissioner of Personnel for all , persons whose employment is subject to the. provisions of . _ Article 644A of the Annotated Code of | Maryland/and by the city service commission of Baltimore for employees every board, commission, council; de ent, court or “other agency of the State of Maryland or any political subdivision thereof responsible for the supervision of:other employees, for - employees under its. jurisdiction. Any such . person failing or refusing to execute such a statement or who admits -he is a subversive person as defined in this article.shall immediately be- discharged. (An. vipa 1951, $13; 1949, ch. 86, § 13; 1953, ch. 510.) oy $14. Discharge from office. Reasonable grounds | on all thé diidence to believe that any person is a subversive person, as defined in this article, shall be cause’ fer discharge from any appointive Office or. _ othér position of profit“ or trust in the ssiiteainnaiile of or « « . - “9 ‘ 7 > 4 ; . A . §§ 142 to © « \ x \e Marland: Subversive Activities Act-of 1949 % in. the administration of-the business. of this Staté, or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision of s this State, or any agency thereof. The State Commissioner. of Personnel and the civil service dommission of Baltimore ; shall, by appropriate rules or regulations, prescribe that persons charged with being subversive persons, as defined . in tHis article, shall ‘be accorded notice arid: opportunity to \. be heard, in aceordance with the procedures prescribed :by law for discharges for other reasons. Every person and every board, commission, council, department, or’ other ' ‘agency of the State of Maryland or any political subdivi- | sion . thereof: having _Tesponsibility for the appointment, employment or supervision of “public employees not cov- % ered by the classified service in this section referred to, -Shall establish Tules.or procedures similar to those required, ,° 4 _ . Before any appropriation of public funds of any charac: ~~ _ ter shall be made by the State of Maryland to any private institution of learning,-there shall be filed with the Gover: nor, the President of the Senate dnd -the Speaker of the - House of Delegates; on behalf of said institution, a written _ Teport’setting forth what procedures it has adopted to de- , ‘ “ OL A EL SOLID Ay I 3 5 " ¢ etoals ee 82a ae ae A Maryland Subversive’ Activities’ : At. of 1949 Pat ‘teltnine whether it has reasonable —* to believe that ‘ -any subversive persons are in its employ, and what steps, AY -if any, have been or are’ being taken to. terminate” such ‘employment. In the abseneé of Such a report: no appropria- - ~* tion shall be included in the State budget or approved ee - ‘the General ‘Assembly. (An. Code, 1951, § 16; 1949, ch. 86, a) Sen } | * -§ 17, False statements ee perjury. ‘ Every written’ statement made pursuant; to this article by an applicant for appointment or employment, or by any - employee, shall be deemed to have been made under oath ° if it contains a declaration preceding the signature of the maker to the effect that’ it is made under the penalties of _ perjury. Any person who makes a material misstatement "Of: fact (2) in any such written statement, or (b) in any affidavit made pursuant to the provisions of this article, _ or (ce): under oath in any hearing conducted by any agency ‘of the State, or of any'of its political subdivisions, pursuant to this article, or (d).in any “written statement: by an appli- : cant, for appointment “or employment or ‘by. an employee ' in any State aid or private’ institution of learning in. this State, intended to determine whether or nof such. applicant or ‘employee is a subversive person as. defined in this ar- - ticle, which statement contains notice that it is subject to -the penalties of perjury, shall be subject to the penalties of - “perjury prescribed in’ Article 27, 4439 of-the, Annotated Code. (An, Code, 1951, $17; 1949, ch. 86, seg § 18. Severability. : If any provision, phada/ or clause of this article or the*. 3 apptication thereof to any person or circumstance is held Dp. sae \ | ~ Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949 . invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, phrases, or dlauses or applications of this article which . ean be given effect without the invalid provision, phrase, | or clause or application, and to this end the provisions, — phrases and clauses of this article are declared to be séver- : able. (An. Code, 1951, » §18; 1949, ch. 86, $18.) © . . . ° . ° e : eh Sirs ° . e . ‘ ° . “ . . . : . . a > . . . : - ‘ o. 4 ~~, - j - ‘et o& . 2 ’ « . . . ‘ . : ° ” . ~ . . : “ . Se os - Sa e . < - . a) . be . . es s . _ a 5 . < : ® * --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386412_0102%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.