Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Communist Party, U.S.A. v. Catherwood…

On this basis New York has reasoned that liability to taxation as an employer, though not a privilege in the ordinary sense of the term, is nonetheless a recognition of the common-law contractual capacity to employ, and as such is advantageous to petitioners; and further, that an employer whose employees are unable to benefit from state and federal unemployment insurance programs will be disadvantaged in finding and keeping employees. Therefore it was thought that the Communist Control Act required termination of the registration of petitioners as employers.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Communist Party, U.S.A. v. Catherwood…

We hold that the Communist Control Act of 1954 does not require exclusion of the petitioners from New York's unemployment compensation system. Since the New York Court of Appeals' decision unmistakably rested on the contrary premise, its judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Communist Party, U.S.A. v. Catherwood…

The Communist Party of the Unied States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature