Five days after enactment of the Michigan Communist Control Act
of April 17, 1952, the Communist Party of Michigan and its
Executive Secretary sued in a Federal District Court for a
declaratory judgment that it violates the Federal Constitution and
for an injunction against it enforcement. The District Court found
the Act constitutional, but temporarily retrained its enforcement
pending appeal to this Court. A similar suit was brought in a state
court, but is being held in abeyance pending the decision of this
Court. The Act has not been construed or applied by the Michigan
courts or executive authorities.
Held: judgment vacated and cause remanded with
directions to vacate the restraining order and to hold the
proceedings in abeyance a reasonable time pending construction of
the statute by the state courts. Pp.
345 U. S.
242-245.
106 F.
Supp. 635, judgment vacated and cause remanded.
PER CURIAM.
On April 17, 1952, the Governor of Michigan signed the Michigan
Communist Control Bill. On April 22, 1952, the Communist Party of
Michigan and William Albertson, its Executive Secretary, filed a
complaint in the United
Page 345 U. S. 243
States District Court or the Eastern District of Michigan.
Sections 2-5, inclusive, and Section 7 of the Act were alleged to
violate various provisions of the Federal Constitution. A
declaratory judgment to that effect was sought, along with an
injunction to prevent state officials and officers from enforcing
the Act. A three-udge District Court,
106 F.
Supp. 635, found the Act constitutional, and an appeal was
taken to this Court.
Section 5 of the Act requires the registration of Communists,
the Communist Party, and Communist front organizations, and Section
7 prevents them from appearing on any ballot in the State.
"Communist," "Communist Party," and "Communist front organization"
are given a statutory meaning by the Michigan Legislature.
* Mich.Acts 1952,
No. 117.
Page 345 U. S. 244
These definitions are challenged by the appellants as void for
vagueness. The definition of a Communist as " . . . a member of the
communist party, notwithstanding the fact that he may not pay dues
to, or hold a card in, said party . . . " is said to be vague
since, once dues and cards are eliminated as criteria, there are no
readily apparent means of determining who is a member. As to the
definition of the Communist Party as an organization " . . .
substantially directed, dominated or controlled by the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics or its satellites," it is contended
there are no standards as to what is a "satellite." In regard to
the definition of both Communist Party and Communist front
organization as an organization which " . . . in any manner
advocates, or acts to further, the world communist movement,"
appellants point to the failure to define the "world communist
movement" as creating vagueness. The answers given to these and
possibly other problems of construction and interpretation arising
under the definitions in Sections 2-4 will determine the ultimate
scope of the Act.
Interpretation of state legislation is primarily the function of
state authorities, judicial and administrative. The construction
given to a state statute by the state courts is binding upon
federal courts. There has been no interpretation of this statute by
the state courts. The absence of such construction stems from the
fact this action in federal court was commenced only five days
after the statute became law.
There is pending in the Circuit Court for Wayne County,
Michigan, a bill seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act is
unconstitutional, both on federal and state
Page 345 U. S. 245
grounds. That action is being held in abeyance pending our
mandate and decision in this case.
We deem it appropriate in this case that the state courts
construe this statute before the District Court further considers
the action.
See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of City of Los
Angeles, 331 U. S. 549
(1947);
American Federation of Labor v. Watson,
327 U. S. 582, and
Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.
S. 101 (1944).
The judgment is vacated, and he cause remanded to the District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan with directions to
vacate the restraining order it issued and to hold the proceedings
in abeyance a reasonable time pending construction of the statute
by the state courts either in pending litigation or other
litigation which may be instituted.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents.
*
"Sec. 2. A 'communist' is a person who:"
"(a) Is a member of the communist party, notwithstanding the
fact that he may not pay dues to, or hold a card in, said party;
or"
"(b) Knowingly contributes funds or any character of property to
the communist party; or"
"(c) Commits or advocates the commission of any act reasonably
calculated to further the overthrow of the government of the United
States of America, the government of the state of Michigan, or the
government of any political subdivision of either of them, by force
or violence; or"
"(d) Commits or advocates the commission of any act reasonably
calculated to further the overthrow of the government of the United
States, the government of the state of Michigan, or the government
of any political subdivision of either of them, by unlawful or
unconstitutional means, and the substitution of a communist
government or a government intended to be substantially directed,
dominated or controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
or its satellities."
"Sec. 3. The 'communist party' is any organization which is
substantially directed, dominated or controlled by the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics or its satellities, or which in any
manner advocates, or acts to further, the world communist
movement."
"Sec. 4. A 'communist front organization' is any organization,
the members of which are not all communists, but which is
substantially directed, dominated or controlled by communists or by
the communist party, or which in any manner advocates, or acts to
further, the world communist movement. The attorney general of the
state of Michigan annually shall prepare and cause to be published
a list of all such communist front organizations."
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
There doubtless will be instances where it is uncertain whether
a particular person is a "Communist" or whether a particular group
is included in the "Communist Party" as those terms are defined in
the Michigan Act. But, as I read this record, there cannot be the
slightest doubt that the Communist Party of Michigan is what it
purports to be and that appellant Albertson, its Executive
Secretary, is one of its members. In other words, it is plain
beyond argument that the appellants are covered by the Michigan
Act.
The case is therefore ripe for decision. It is not clouded with
abstract questions. There are no ambiguities involving these
appellants. The constitutional questions do not turn on any
niceties in the interpretation of the Michigan law. The case is
therefore unlike
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court,
331 U. S. 549, and
its forebears, where the nature of the constitutional issue
Page 345 U. S. 246
would depend on the manner in which uncertain and ambiguous
state statutes were construed.
See especially AFL v.
Watson, 327 U. S. 582,
327 U. S. 598.
Here, there are but two questions:
(1) Can Michigan require the Communist Party of Michigan and its
Executive Secretary to register?
(2) Can Michigan forbid the name of any Communist or of any
nominee of the Communist Party to be printed on the ballot in any
primary or general election in the state?
In my view, no decision of the Michigan state courts can make
those two issues any more precise or specific than the present case
makes them.