text:
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. JAMES B. BEAM DISTILLING CO.
    No. 389.
    Argued March 23, 1964.
    Decided June 1, 1964.

      William, S. Riley, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were John B. Breckinridge, Attorney General of Kentucky, Francis D. Burke and Hal 0. Williams.

      Millard Cox argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires consideration of the relationship between the Export-Import Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution.

The respondent, a Kentucky producer of distilled spirits, is also the sole distributor in the United States of “Gilbey’s Spey Royal” Scotch whisky. This whisky is produced in Scotland and is shipped via the ports of Chicago or New Orleans directly to the respondent’s bonded warehouses in Kentucky. It is subsequently sold by the respondent to customers in domestic markets throughout the United States.

A Kentucky law provides:

“No person shall ship or transport or cause to be shipped or transported into the state any distilled spirits from points without the state without first obtaining a permit from the department and paying a tax of ten cents on each proof gallon contained in the shipment.” KRS 243.680 (2)(a).

Under the authority of this statute the Kentucky Department of Revenue, petitioner, required the respondent to pay a tax of 10 cents on each proof gallon of whisky which it thus imported from Scotland. It is not disputed that, as stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, “the tax was collected while the whisky remained in unbroken packages in the hands of the original importer and prior to resale or use by the importer.” The respondent filed a claim for refund of the taxes, upon the ground that their imposition violated the Export-Import Clause of the Constitution. The Kentucky Tax Commission and a Kentucky Circuit Court denied the claim, but on appeal the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld it. -367 S. W. 2d 267. We granted certiorari to consider the constitutional issue which the case presents. 375 U. S. 811.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the tax in question, although an occupational or license tax in form, is a tax on imports in fact. “[T]he incidence of the tax is the act of transporting or shipping the distilled spirits under consideration into this state.” 367 S. W. 2d, at 270. The court further held that the tax cannot be characterized as an inspection measure, in view of the fact that neither the statute nor the regulations implementing it provide for any actual inspection. Concluding, therefore, that the tax falls squarely within the interdiction of the Export-Import Clause, the court held that this provision of the Constitution has not been repealed, insofar as intoxicants are concerned, by the Twenty-first Amendment. Accordingly, the court ruled that the respondent was entitled to a refund of the taxes it had paid. We agree with the Kentucky Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment before us.

The tax here in question is clearly of a kind prohibited by the Export-Import Clause. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. As this Court stated almost a century ago in Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29, a case involving a California ad valorem tax on wine imported from France and stored in original cases in a San Francisco warehouse, “the goods imported do not lose their character as imports, . . . until they have passed from the control of the importer or been broken up by him from their original cases. Whilst retaining their character as imports, a tax upon them, in any shape, is within the constitutional prohibition.” Id., at 34. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652.

As we noted in Hostetter v. Idlewild Liquor Corp., ante, p. 330, “[t]his Court made clear in the early years following adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment that by virtue of its provisions a State is totally unconfined by traditional Commerce Clause limitations when it restricts the importation of intoxicants destined for use, distribution, or consumption within its borders.” What is involved in the present case, however, is not the generalized authority given to Congress by the Commerce Clause, but a constitutional provision which flatly prohibits any State from imposing a tax upon imports from abroad. “We have often indicated the difference in this respect between the local taxation of imports in the original package and the like taxation of goods, either before or after their shipment in interstate commerce. In the one case the immunity derives from the prohibition upon taxation of the imported merchandise itself. In the other the immunity is only from such local regulation by taxation as interferes with the constitutional power of Congress to regulate the commerce, whether the taxed merchandise is in the original package or not.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 665-666.

This Court has never so much as intimated that the Twenty-first Amendment has operated to permit what the Export-Import Clause precisely and explicitly forbids. In State Board v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59, 62, the Court said that the Twenty-first Amendment “abrogated the right to import free [from Missouri or Wisconsin, under the Commerce Clause] so far as concerns intoxicating liquors.” In that case the appellee had argued in its brief that such a holding would imply an invalidation of the Export-Import Clause as well, but the Court’s opinion was careful to note, “[t]he plaintiffs insist' that to sustain the exaction of the importer’s license-fee would involve a declaration that the Amendment has, in respect to liquor, freed the States from all restrictions upon the police power to be found in other provisions of the Constitution. The question for decision requires no such generalization.” Id., at 64. In Gordon v. Texas, 355 U. S. 369, the Court in a brief per curiam affirmed a Texas conviction for illegal possession of 11 bottles of rum which had been imported without a permit and to which the required Texas tax stamps were not affixed. The state tax in that case had been held to be not a tax on imports. It is clear that the gravamen of the offense in Gordon was the failure to obtain, or even apply for, a permit as required by state law. Such permits, in addition to other functions, serve to channelize the traffic in liquor and thus to prevent diversion of that traffic into unauthorized channels. In the present case the respondent has both applied for and obtained the requisite permit. The relief it requests is not the abrogation of that requirement, but simply a refund of the import tax.

To sustain the tax which Kentucky has imposed in this case would require nothing short of squarely holding that the Twenty-first Amendment has completely repealed the Export-Import Clause so far as intoxicants are concerned. Nothing in the language of the Amendment nor in its history leads to such an extraordinary conclusion. This Court has never intimated such a view, and now that the claim for the first time is squarely presented, we expressly reject it.

We have no doubt that under the Twenty-first Amendment Kentucky could not only regulate, but could completely prohibit the importation of some intoxicants, or of all intoxicants, destined for distribution, use, or consumption within its borders. There can surely be no doubt, either, of Kentucky’s plenary power to regulate and control, by .taxation or otherwise, the distribution, use, or consumption of intoxicants within her territory after they have been imported. All we decide today is that, because of the explicit and precise words of the Export-Import Clause of the Constitution, Kentucky may not lay this impost on these imports from abroad.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the disposition of this case.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Goldberg joins,

dissenting.

This case, like Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., also decided today, ante, p. 324, deprives the States of a large part of the power which I think the Twenty-first Amendment gives them to regulate the liquor business by taxation or otherwise. That Amendment provides in part that “The transportation or importation into any State ... for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” Kentucky requires persons transporting distilled spirits into the State from without the State to obtain a permit and pay a tax of 10 cents per gallon. This Kentucky tax as applied to liquors imported into Kentucky from another State is, since the Twenty-first Amendment, unquestionably valid against objections based on either the Commerce or Equal Protection Clauses. Such was the holding of this Court, soon after the Amendment’s adoption, in State Board v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59 (1936), where the Court held that a State is free under the Twenty-first Amendment to levy a “heavy importation fee” on beer brought into the State. In that case, the beer was imported from Missouri and Wisconsin, but there is nothing in the Court’s opinion to suggest that the holding would have been different if the beer had come from, say, Canada. See Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U. S. 391 (1939); Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U. S. 395 (1939). Yet here, because the liquors Kentucky has taxed are imports from Scotland rather than imports from another part of the United States, the Court holds that the Kentucky tax is barred because Art. I, § 10, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws . . . .” I think this clause forbidding a State to tax imports from abroad no more limits a State’s right to tax intoxicating liquors than does the Commerce Clause. In the first place, the Commerce Clause applies to foreign and interstate commerce alike. Further, the clause against taxing imports is general like the Commerce Clause itself. Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, by contrast, is not general in its application. It was adopted with one specific object: to give the States unfettered power to regulate intoxicating liquors. State Board v. Young’s Market Co., supra, and our other cases expressly held the State’s power not to be limited either by the Commerce Clause or by the Equal Protection Clause. Surely the Export-Import Clause is no more exalted and no more worthy to be excepted from the Twenty-first Amendment than are the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses. It seems a trifle odd to hold that an Amendment adopted in 1933 in specific terms to meet a specific twentieth-century problem must yield to a provision written in 1787 to meet a more general, although no less important, problem. Since the Twenty-first Amendment was designed to empower the States to tax “intoxicating liquors” imported into the States, I cannot take it upon myself to say that a State can tax liquors made in this country but not those made in Scotland — a distinction not suggested by the Amendment’s language or its history. The Amendment, after all, does not talk about “foreign” liquors or “domestic” liquors; it simply speaks of “liquors” — all liquors, whatever their origin. The purpose of the Amendment was to give States power to regulate, by taxation or otherwise, all liquors within their boundaries. To free from state taxation liquors imported from abroad is to place States at the mercy of liquor importers who want to use a State as a storage place for distribution of their imports. It de-r prives a State of the power the Twenty-first Amendment gives each State — that is, plenary power to decide which liquors shall be admitted into the State for storage, sale, or distribution within the State. A State may choose to have wine only, beer only, Scotch only, bourbon only, or none of these. As the Court said in State Board v. Young’s Market Co., supra, at 63, a State can “either prohibit all competing importations, or discourage importation by laying a heavy impost, or channelize desired importations . . . .” Although I was brought up to believe that Scotch whisky would need a tax preference to survive in competition with Kentucky bourbon, I never understood the Constitution to require a State to give such preference. (My dissenting Brother asks me to say that this statement does not necessarily represent his views on the respective merits of Scotch and bourbon.)

As recently as 1958, this Court reviewed the Texas conviction of a man who had brought some bottles of rum into Texas from Mexico on his way to his home in North Carolina, and had refused to pay Texas alcoholic beverage taxes when asked to do so. Over objections that this tax violated both the Export-Import Clause and the Commerce Clause, this Court, in a three-line per curiam opinion, unanimously affirmed the conviction. Gordon v. Texas, 355 U. S. 369 (1958). Briefs filed by Texas in that case had argued that the tax was really one on “possession,” not on “importation,” but these labels cannot obscure the fact that both in Gordon and in this case the same conduct was involved: the physical importation of liquor from abroad into the State, at which point the State's interest in regulating or taxing the liquor came into play. Gordon did not — just as the Twenty-first Amendment does not — draw nice distinctions about where imported liquor comes from. Nor is there one word in the debates in Congress preceding the adoption of the Amendment to suggest that the backers of the Amendment, in seeking to give the States full and unhampered power over liquor traffic, thought liquor coming from abroad was less of a problem than domestic liquor or should be treated at all differently.

A final word concerning the Court’s statement that “To sustain the tax which Kentucky has imposed in this case would require nothing short of squarely holding that the Twenty-first Amendment has completely repealed the Export-Import Clause so far as intoxicants are concerned.” Ante, p. 345. This, I think, is not correct. What the Twenty-first Amendment does mean, I believe, is that whenever liquor imported from anywhere outside the State, including foreign countries, is transported physically into a State, there to come to rest to be stored for sale and distribution, it then and there becomes a state problem and like all other liquors is subject to state laws of all kinds. It cannot be treated as if it were liquor passing straight through the State — although even then the State would have the power to impose regulations to prevent diversions or other possible evils. See Carter v. Virginia, 321 U. S. 131 (1944). Whatever may have been the virtue or the constitutional soundness of the fiction that articles imported from abroad are “imports” so long as they remain “in their original packages,” see Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652 (1945), and dissent at 686-691, that doctrine was expressly attacked in the Senate debate on the Twenty-first Amendment as rendering the States “powerless to protect themselves against the importation of liquor into the States.” 76 Cong. Rec. 4171 (1933): The Amendment was meant to bury that obstacle to state power over liquor, and the doctrine of “original package,” which the Senate consciously rejected, should not be revived after 30 years' interment, once again to be used to deprive States of power the Senate so clearly wanted them to have and the people so clearly granted them. Section 2 of the Amendment, born of long and bitter experience in the field of liquor regulation, should not be frustrated by us.

I would uphold the Kentucky tax.

       “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 2.

       “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” U. S. Const., Amend. XXI, § 2.

       As the Kentucky Court of Appeals noted, two other state courts have reached the same conclusion. Parrott & Co. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. App. 2d 332, 280 P. 2d 881; State v. Board of Review, 15 Wis. 2d 330, 112 N. W. 2d 914.

         See State Board v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59; Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm’n, 305 U. S. 391; Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U. S. 395.

       See brief for appellees, No. 22, 1936 Term, pp. 24-25.

       “It is apparent that the tax involved is not an import tax nor a tax upon an importation. In fact, the instant tax could not become an import tax because the importation must have been completed before the tax here levied attached.” Gordon v. State, 166 Tex. Cr. R. 24, 27, 310 S. W. 2d 328, 330.

       Prior to the Eighteenth Amendment Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act and the Wilson Act, giving the States a large degree of autonomy in regulating the importation and distribution of intoxicants. Those laws are still in force. 27 U. S. C. §§ 121, 122. In De Bary v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, the Court upheld under the Wilson Act a Louisiana license 'tax imposed on the business of selling in their original packages wines and liquors imported from abroad. There is nothing in that decision, nor in the language of either the Wilson Act or the Webb-Kenyon Act, to support the view that Congress intended by those laws to consent to state taxation upon importation of liquor.

       “The State of Iowa passed a prohibition law prohibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors, except under certain specifications made. The Supreme Court in the case of Leisy v. Hardin (135 U. S. 100) held the law unconstitutional, in so far as it applied to the sale by the importer in the original package or keg. . . .
      “The States therefore were powerless to protect themselves against the importation of liquor into the States.” 76 Cong. Rec. 4171 (1933) (Senator Borah).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Stewart

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. VERMONT et al.
    No. 509.
    Argued April 21, 1964.
    Decided June 1, 1964.

      Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and Joseph Kovner.

      Charles E. Gibson, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves a conflict between two liens upon the property of a solvent Vermont taxpayer — a federal tax lien arising under the provisions of 26 U. S. C. §§ 6321 and 6322 and an antecedent state tax lien based on a Vermont law worded in terms virtually identical to the provisions of those federal statutes.

On October 21, 1958, the State of Vermont made an assessment and demand on Cutting & Trimming, Inc., for withheld state income taxes of $1,628.15. The applicable Vermont statute, modeled on the comparable federal enactments, provides that if an employer required to withhold a tax fails to pay the same after demand, “the amount, including interest after such demand, together witty any costs that may accrue in addition thereto, shall be a lien in favor of the state of Vermont upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such employer,” and that “[s]uch lien shall arise at the time the assessment and demand is made by the commissioner of taxes and shall continue until the liability for such sum, with interest and costs, is satisfied or becomes unenforceable.”

More than three months later, on February 9, 1959, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made an assessment against Cutting & Trimming of $5,365.96 for taxes due under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. Under §§ 6321 and 6322, this amount became “a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person,” which arose “at the time the assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.”

On May 21, 1959, the State instituted suit in a state court against Cutting & Trimming, joining as a defendant Chittenden Trust Company, a Burlington bank which, as the result of a writ served on May 25, disclosed that it had in hand sums owing to Cutting & Trimming. On October 23, 1959, judgment was entered against Cutting & Trimming and against Chittenden Trust Company.

In 1961, the United States brought the present action in the Federal District Court for Vermont to foreclose the federal lien against the property of Cutting & Trimming held by the Trust Company. Vermont’s answer alleged that the state assessment of October 21, 1958, gave its lien priority over the federal lien. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court held that the state lien had priority, and directed the Trust Company to apply the moneys which it held first to the payment of principal and interest on that lien, and to pay any balance to the United States. 206 F. Supp. 951.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that, under this Court’s decision in United States v. New Britain, 347 U. S. 81, “[i]t would seem that if the general federal tax lien under §§ 6321 and 6322 is thus sufficiently 'choate’ to prevail over a later specific local tax lien, a general state tax lien under an almost identically worded statute must also be 'choate’ enough to prime a later and equally general federal tax lien,” 317 F. 2d 446, 452. Accordingly, the appellate court applied “the ‘cardinal rule’ laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott, 12 Wheat. (25 U. S.) 177, 179 (1827): ‘The principle is believed to be universal that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to prior satisfaction, out of the subject it binds ....’” Id., at 450. Because of the importance of the question in the administration of the state and federal revenue laws, we granted certiorari. 375 U. S. 940. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Both parties urge that decision here is governed by United States v. New Britain, 347 U. S. 81. In that case, involving conflicting municipal and federal statutory liens, the Court held that “the priority of each statutory lien contested here must depend on the time it attached to the property in question and became choate.” Id., at 86. In determining the ehoateness of the liens involved, the Court “accept[ed] the [state court’s] holding as to the specificity of the City’s liens since they attached to specific pieces of real property for the taxes assessed and water rent due,” but it went on to stress that “liens may also be perfected in the sense that there is nothing more to be done to have a choate lien — when the identity of the lienor, the property subject to the lien, and the amount of the lien are established. The federal tax liens are general and, in the sense above indicated, perfected.” Id., at 84. Vermont’s claim for the priority of its lien over the later federal lien is based on the fact that its lien is as completely “perfected” as was the federal lien in New Britain. Opposing this claim, the United States urges that different standards of choateness apply to federal and state liens, even where, as here, they are based on statutes identical in every material respect. The argument, in short, is that an antecedent state lien, in order to obtain priority over a federal lien based on §§ 6321 and 6322, cannot, like the federal lien, attach to all of the taxpayer’s property, but must rather, like the municipal liens in New Britain, attach to specifically identified portions of that property.

The requirement that a competing lien must be choate in order to take priority over a later federal tax lien stems from the decision in United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U. S. 47. There, an attachment lien which gave no right to proceed against the attached property unless judgment was obtained within three years or within an extension provided by the statute was held junior to a federal tax lien which had arisen after the date of the attachment but prior to the date of judgment on the ground that “[n]umerous contingencies might arise that would prevent the attachment lien from ever becoming perfected by a judgment awarded and recorded. Thus the attachment lien is contingent or inchoate— merely a lis pendens notice that a right to perfect a lien exists.” Id., at 50. The Security Trust rationale has since been applied in a case where a federal tax lien arose prior to judgment on a garnishment lien, United States v. Liverpool & London Ins. Co., 348 U. S. 215, and comparable defects have been held to require the according of priority to the federal lien in a series of cases involving competing mechanics’ liens.

In addition to setting out the specific ground of decision, however, the Security Trust opinion went on to state:

“In cases involving a kindred matter, i. e., the federal priority under R. S. § 3466, it has never been held sufficient to defeat the federal priority merely to show a lien effective to protect the lienor against others than the Government, but contingent upon taking subsequent steps for enforcing it. . . . If the purpose of the federal tax lien statute to insure prompt and certain collection of taxes due the United States from tax delinquents is to be fulfilled, a similar rule must prevail here.” 340 U. S., at 51.

Relying on this statement, the United States urges us to read Security Trust as establishing the proposition that federal tax liens are entitled to priority, not only over “a lis pendens notice that a right to perfect a lien exists,” but over any antecedent lien which is not sufficiently perfected to prevail against the explicit priority which R. S. § 3466 gives to claims of the United States in situations involving insolvency. More particularly, it is suggested that the state liens at issue here did not meet the standards of “specificity” until Vermont attached the funds held by the Chittenden Trust Company, at which time the federal tax lien had already come into existence. This argument fails to discriminate between the standards applicable under the federal tax lien provisions and those applicable to an insolvent debtor under R. S. § 3466.

Section 3466 on its face permits no exception whatsoever from the statutory command that “[wjhenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent . . . debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied.” The statute applies to all the insolvent’s debts to the Government, whether or not arising from taxes, and whether or not secured by a lien. In United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361, without questioning that the lienor was identified, the amount of the lien certain or the property subject to the lien definite, this Court accorded priority to subsequently arising claims of the United States against an insolvent debtor on the ground that:

“In claims of this type, 'specificity’ requires that the lien be attached to certain property by reducing it to possfession, on the theory that the United States has no claim against property no longer in the possession of the debtor. . . . The taxpayer had not been divested by the Town of either title or possession. The Town, therefore, had only a general, unperfected lien.” Id., at 366.

The state tax commissioner’s assessment and demand in the present case clearly did not meet that standard, nor, so far as that goes, did the writ of attachment served on the Chittenden Trust Company. But the New Britain case, 347 U. S. 81, in which “[t]he taxpayer had not been divested by the Town of either title or possession,” makes quite clear that different standards apply where the United States’ claim is based on a tax lien arising under §§ 6321 and 6322. “When the debtor is insolvent, Congress has expressly given priority to the payment of indebtedness owing the United States, whether secured by liens or otherwise, by § 3466 of the Revised Statutes, 31 U. S. C. . . . § 191. In that circumstance, where all the property of the debtor is involved, Congress has protected the federal revenues by imposing an absolute priority [citing United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361; United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, 323 U. S. 353]. Where the debtor is not insolvent, Congress has failed to expressly provide for federal priority . . . although the United States is free to pursue the whole of the debtor’s property wherever situated.” United States v. New Britain, 347 U. S. 81, 85.

It is undisputed that the State’s lien here meets the test laid down in New Britain that “the identity of the lienor, the property subject to the lien, and the amount of the lien are established.” 347 U. S., at 84. Moreover, unlike those cases in which the Security Trust rationale was applied to subordinate liens on the ground that judgment had not been obtained prior to the time the federal lien arose, it is as true of Vermont’s lien here as it was of the federal lien in New Britain that “The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt.” Bull v. United States, 295 U. S. 247, 260.

For these reasons, we hold that this antecedent state lien arising under a statute modeled after §§ 6321 and 6322 is sufficiently choate to obtain priority over the later federal lien arising under those provisions. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

       26 U. S. C. § 6321 provides:
      “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.”
      26 U. S. C. §6322 provides:
      “Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the lien imposed by section 6321 shall arise at the time the assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.”

       32 V. S. A. § 5765.

       See note 1, supra. Notice of the federal lien was filed on June 2, 1959, pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 6323, which provides:
      “(a) Invalidity of lien without notice. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor until notice thereof has been filed by the Secretary or his delegate— . . . .”
      No claim is made here that Vermont’s lien comes within any of the four classifications to which § 6323 accords priority until notice of the federal tax lien has been filed. Consequently, we put to one side such cases as United States v. Pioneer American Ins. Co., 374 U. S. 84, United States v. Ball Construction Co., 355 U. S. 587, and United States v. Scovil, 348 U. S, 218, which are concerned with the federal standards to be applied in determining whether the security interests envisaged in that provision have in fact been created. See also United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361, 363-365.

       See also United States v. Acri, 348 U. S. 211 (attachment lien).

        United States v. Hulley, 358 U. S. 66; United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U. S. 15; United States v. White Bear Brewing Co., 350 U. S. 1010; United States v. Colotta, 350 U. S. 808.

       Revised Statutes §3466 provides:
      “Whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent, or whenever the estate of any deceased debtor, in the hands of the executors or administrators, is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased, the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied; and the priority hereby established shall extend as well to cases in which a debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his debts, makes a voluntary assignment thereof, or in which the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed, or absent debtor are attached by process of law, as to cases in which an act of bankruptcy is committed.”

       See also Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 375-376; United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353, 359-360.

       Indeed, this Court has repeatedly reserved the question whether the priority given the United States by R. S. § 3466 can be overcome even by a prior specific and perfected lien. United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361, 365; Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 370; United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353, 355-356; United States v. Texas, 314 U. S. 480, 484-486; New York v. Maclay, 288 U. S. 290, 294; Spokane County v. United States, 279 U. S. 80, 95.

       See also Crest Finance Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 347.

       See notes 4 and 5, supra, and accompanying text.

       See 317 F. 2d, at 448, n. 2.

       The municipal liens accorded priority in New Britain were also characterized as summarily enforceable. See Brief for the United States, No. 92, 1953 Term, p. 27, n. 13.


author: Mb. Justice White Mr. Justice Clark,

text:
    BAGGETT et al. v. BULLITT et al.
    No. 220.
    Argued March 24, 1964.
    Decided June 1, 1964.

      Arval A. Morris and Kenneth A. MacDonald argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.

      Herbert H. Fuller, Deputy Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Dean A. Floyd, Assistant Attorney General.^
   Mb. Justice White

delivered the opinion of^ej3©trr-tr''

Appellants, approximately 64 in number, are members of the faculty, staff and student body of the University of Washington who brought this class action asking for a judgment declaring unconstitutional two Washington statutes requiring the execution of two different oaths by state employees and for an injunction against the enforcement of these statutes by appellees, the President of the University, members of the Washington State Board of Regents and the State Attorney General.

The statutes under attack are Chapter 377, Laws of 1955, and Chapter 103, Laws of 1931, both of which require employees of the State of Washington to take the oaths prescribed in the statutes as a condition of their employment. The 1931 legislation applies only to teachers, who, upon applying for a license to teach or renewing an existing contract, are required to subscribe to the following:

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the State of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the State of Washington, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States.” Wash. Laws 1931, c. 103.

The oath requirements of the 1955 Act, Wash. Laws 1955, c. 377, applicable to all state employees, incorporate various provisions of the Washington Subversive Activities Act of 1951, which provides generally that “[n]o subversive person, as defined in this act, shall be eligible for employment in, or appointment to any office, or any position of trust or profit in the government, or in the administration of the business, of this state, or of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.81.060. The term “subversive person” is defined as follows:

“ ‘Subversive person’ means any person who commits, 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 in the commission of any act 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 Washington, or any political subdivision of either of them by revolution, force, or violence; or who with knowledge that the organization is an organization as described in subsections (2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.81.010 (5).

The Act goes on to define at similar length and in similar terms “subversive organization” and “foreign subversive organization” and to declare the Communist Party a subversive organization and membership therein a subversive activity.

On May 28, 1962, some four months after this Court’s dismissal of the appeal irf Nostrand v. Little, 368 U. S. 436, also a challenge to the 1955 oath, the University President, acting pursuant to directions of the Board of Regents, issued a memorandum to all University employees notifying them that they would be required to take an oath. Oath Form A requires all teaching personnel to swear to the oath of allegiance set out above, to aver that they have read, are familiar with and understand the provisions defining “subversive person” in the Subversive Activities Act of 1951 and to disclaim being a subversive person and membership in the Communist Party or any other subversive or foreign subversive organization. Oath Form B requires other state employees to subscribe to all of the above provisions except the 1931 oath. Both forms provide that the oath and statements pertinent thereto are made subject to the penalties of perjury.

Pursuant, to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, a three-judge District Courfi-was convened and a trial was had. That court determined that the 1955 oath and underlying statutory provisions did not infringe upon any First and Fourteenth Amendment'freedoms and. .were not unduly vague. In respect to the claim that the 1931 oath was unconstitutionally vague on its face,'the court held that although the challenge raised a substantial constitutional issue, adjudication was not proper in the absence of proceedings in the state courts which might resolve or avoid the constitutional issue. The action was dismissed. 215 F. Supp. 439. We noted probable jurisdiction because of-the public importance of this type of legislation and the recurring serious constitutional questions which it presents. 375 U. S. 808. We reverse.

I.

Appellants contend in this Court that the oath requirements and the statutory provisions on which they are based are invalid on their face because their language is unduly vague, uncertain and broad. We agree with this contention and therefore, without reaching the numerous other contentions pressed upon us, confine our considerations to that particular question.

In Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, the Court invalidated an oath requiring teachers and other employees of the State to swear that they had never lent their “aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party” because the oath was lacking in “terms susceptible of objective measurement” and failed to inform as to what the State commanded or forbade. The statute therefore fell within the compass of those decisions of the Court holding that a law forbidding or requiring conduct in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process of law. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385; Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451; Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495; United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210.

The oath required by the 1955 statute suffers from similar infirmities. A teacher must swear that he is not a subversive person: that he is not one who commits an act or who advises, teaches, abets or advocates by any means another person to commit or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow or alter, or to assist the overthrow or alteration, of the constitutional form of government by revolution, force or violence. A subversive organization is defined as one which engages in or assists activities intended to alter or overthrow the Government by force or violence or which has as a purpose the commission of such acts. The Communist Party is declared in the statute to be a subversive organization, that is, it is presumed that the Party does and will engage in activities intended to overthrow the Government. Persons required to swear they understand this oath may quite reasonably conclude that any person who aids the Communist Party or teaches or advises known members of the Party is a subversive person because such teaching or advice may now or at some future date aid the activities of the Party. Teaching and advising are clearly acts, and one cannot confidently assert that his counsel, aid, influence or support which adds to the resources, rights and knowledge of the Communist Party or its members does not aid the Party in its activities, activities which the statute tells us are all in furtherance of the stated purpose of overthrowing the Government by revolution, force, or violence. The questions put by the Court in Cramp may with equal force be asked here. Does the statute reach endorsement or support for Communist candidates for office? Does it reach a lawyer who represents the Communist Party or its members or a journalist who defends constitutional rights of the Communist Party or its members or anyone who supports any cause which is likewise supported by Communists or .the Communist Party? The susceptibility of the statutory language to require forswearing of an undefined variety of “guiltless knowing behavior” is what the Court condemned in Cramp. This statute, like the one at issue in Cramp, is unconstitutionally vague.

The Washington statute suffers from additional difficulties on vagueness grounds. A person is subversive not only if he himself commits the specified acts but if he abets or advises another in aiding a third person to commit an act which will assist yet a fourth person in the overthrow or alteration of constitutional government. The Washington Supreme Court has said that knowledge is to be read into every provision and we accept this construction. Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 483-484, 335 P. 2d 10, 24; Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash. 2d 111, 123-124, 361 P. 2d 551, 559. But what is it that the Washington professor must "know”? Must he know that his aid or teaching will be used by another and that the person aided has the requisite guilty intent or is it sufficient that he know that his aid or teaching would or might be useful to others in the commission of acts intended to overthrow the Government? Is it subversive activity, for example, to attend and participate in international conventions of mathematicians and exchange views with scholars from Communist countries? What about the editor of a scholarly journal who analyzes and criticizes the manuscripts of Communist scholars submitted for publication? Is selecting outstanding scholars from Communist countries as visiting professors and advising, teaching, or consulting with them at the University of Washington a subversive activity if such scholars are known to be Communists, or regardless of their affiliations, regularly teach students who are members of the Communist Party, which by statutory definition is subversive and dedicated to the overthrow of the Government?

The Washington oath goes beyond overthrow or alteration by force or violence. It extends to alteration by “revolution” which, unless wholly redundant and its ordinary meaning distorted, includes any rapid or fundamental change. Would, therefore, any organization or any person supporting, advocating or teaching peaceful but far-reaching constitutional amendments be engaged in subversive, activity? Could one support the repeal of the Twenty-second Amendment or participation by this country in a world government?

II.

We also conclude that the 1931 oath offends due process because of vagueness. The oath exacts a promise that the affiant will, by precept and example, promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States and the State of Washington. The range of activities which are or might be deemed inconsistent with the required promise is very wide indeed. The teacher who refused to salute the flag or advocated refusal because of religious beliefs might well be accused of breaching his promise. Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624. Even criticism of the design or color scheme of the state flag or unfavorable comparison of it with that of a sister State or foreign country could be deemed disrespectful and therefore violative of the oath. And what are “institutions” for the purposes of this oath? Is it every “practice, law, custom, etc., which is a material and persistent element in the life or culture of an organized social group” or every “established society or corporation,” every “establishment, especially] one of a public character”? The oath may prevent a professor from criticizing his state judicial system or the Supreme Court or the institution of judicial review. Or it might be deemed to proscribe advocating the abolition, for example, of the Civil Rights Commission, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or foreign aid.

It is likewise difficult to ascertain what might be done without transgressing the promise to “promote . . . undivided allegiance to the government of the United States.” It would not be unreasonable for the serious-minded oathtaker to conclude that he should dispense with lectures voicing far-reaching criticism of any old or new policy followed by the Government of the United States. He could find it questionable under this language to ally himself with any interest group dedicated to opposing any current public policy or law of the Federal Government, for if he did, he might well be accused of placing loyalty to the group above allegiance to the United States.

Indulging every presumption of a narrow construction of the provisions of the 1931 oath, consistent, however, with a proper respect for the English language, we cannot say that this oath provides an ascertainable standard of conduct or that it does not require more than a State may command under the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

As in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, “[t]he vice of unconstitutional vagueness is further aggravated where, as here, the statute in question operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively protected by the Constitution.” 368 U. S. 278, 287. We are dealing with indefinite statutes whose terms, even narrowly construed, abut upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms. The uncertain meanings of the oaths require the oath-taker — teachers and public servants — to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone,” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526, than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked. Those with a conscientious regard for what they solemnly swear or affirm, sensitive to the perils posed by the oath’s indefinite language, avoid the risk of loss of employment, and perhaps profession, only by restricting their conduct to that which is unquestionably safe. Free speech may not be so inhibited. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369. See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; and Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507.

1 — 1 h-[ h-i

The State labels as wholly fanciful the suggested possible coverage of the two oaths. It may well be correct, but the contention only emphasizes the difficulties with the two statutes; for if the oaths do not reach some or any of the behavior suggested, what specific conduct do the oaths cover? Where does fanciful possibility end and intended coverage begin?

It will not do to say that a prosecutor's sense of fairness and the Constitution would prevent a successful perjury prosecution for some of the activities seemingly embraced within the sweeping statutory definitions. The hazard of being prosecuted for knowing but guiltless behavior nevertheless remains. “It would be blinking reality not to acknowledge that there are some among us always ready to affix a Communist label upon those whose ideas they violently oppose. And experience teaches us that prosecutors too are human.” Cramp, supra, at 286-287. Well-intentioned prosecutors and judicial safeguards do not neutralize the vice of a vague law. Nor should we encourage the casual taking of oaths by upholding the discharge or exclusion from public employment of those with a conscientious and scrupulous regard for such undertakings.

It is further argued, however, that, notwithstanding the uncertainties of the 1931 oath and the statute on which it is based, the oath does not offend due process because the vagaries are contained in a promise of future conduct, the breach of which would not support a conviction for perjury. Without the criminal sanctions, it is said, one need not fear taking this oath, regardless of whether he understands it and can comply with its mandate, however understood. This contention ignores not only the effect of the oath on those who will not solemnly swear unless they can do so honestly and without prevarication and reservation, but also its effect on those who believe the written law means what it says. Oath Form A contains both oaths, and expressly requires that the signer “understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.” Moreover, Wash. Rev. Code §9.72.030 provides that “[e]very person who, whether orally or in writing . . . shall knowingly swear falsely concerning any matter whatsoever” commits perjury in the second degree. Even if it can be said that a conviction for falsely taking this oath would not be sustained, the possibility of a prosecution cannot be gainsaid. The State may not require one to choose between subscribing to an unduly vague and broad oath, thereby incurring the likelihood of prosecution, and conscientiously refusing to take the oath with the consequent loss of employment, and perhaps profession, particularly where “the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151. “It is not the penalty itself that is invalid but the exaction of obedience to a rule or standard that is so vague and indefinite as to be really no rule or standard at all.” Champlin Refg. Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210, 243; cf. Small Co. v. American Refg. Co., 267 U. S. 233.

IV.

We are asked not to examine the 1931 oath statute because, although on the books for over three decades, it has never been interpreted by the Washington courts. The argument is that ever since Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, the Court on many occasions has ordered abstention where state tribunals were thought to be more appropriate for resolution of complex or unsettled questions of local law. A. F. L. v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167. Because this Court ordinarily accepts the construction given a state statute in the local courts and also presumes that the statute will be construed in such a way as to avoid the constitutional question presented, Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, an interpretation of the 1931 oath in the Washington courts in light of the vagueness attack may eliminate the necessity of deciding this issue.

We are not persuaded. The abstention doctrine is not an automatic rule applied whenever a federal court is faced with a doubtful issue of state law; it rather involves a discretionary exercise of a court’s equity powers. Ascertainment of whether there exist the “special circumstances,” Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, prerequisite to its application must be made on a case-by-case basis. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 500; NAACP v. Bennett, 360 U. S. 471. Those special circumstances are not present here. We doubt, in the first place, that a construction of the oath provisions, in light of the vagueness challenge, would avoid or fundamentally alter the constitutional issue raised in this litigation. See Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77. In the bulk of abstention cases in this Court, including those few cases where vagueness was at issue, the unsettled issue of state law principally concerned the applicability of the challenged statute to a certain person or a defined course of conduct, whose resolution in a particular manner would eliminate the constitutional issue and terminate the litigation. Here the uncertain issue of state law does not turn upon a choice between one or several alternative meanings of a state statute. The challenged oath is not open to one or a few interpretations, but to an indefinite number. There is no uncertainty that the oath applies to the appellants and the issue they raise is not whether the oath permits them to engage in certain definable activities. Rather their complaint is that they, about 64 in number, cannot understand the required promise, cannot define the range of activities in which they might engage in the future, and do not want to forswear doing all that is literally or arguably within the purview of the vague terms. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how an abstract construction of the challenged terms, such as precept, example, allegiance, institutions, and the like, in a declaratory judgment action could eliminate the vagueness from these terms. It is fictional to believe that anything less than extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety of factual situations, would bring the oath within the bounds of permissible constitutional certainty. Abstention does not require this.

Other considerations also militate against abstention here. Construction of this oath in the state court, abstractly and without reference to concrete, particularized situations so necessary to bring into focus the impact of the terms on constitutionally protected rights of speech and association, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341 (Brandeis, J., concurring), would not only hold little hope of eliminating the issue of vagueness but also would very likely pose other constitutional issues for decision, a result not serving the abstention-justifying end of avoiding constitutional adjudication.

We also cannot ignore that abstention operates to require piecemeal adjudication in many courts, England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, thereby delaying ultimate adjudication on the merits for an undue length of time, England, supra; Spector, supra; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364, a result quite costly where the vagueness of a state statute may inhibit the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Indeed the 1955 subversive person oath has been under continuous constitutional attack since at least 1957, Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 463, 335 P. 2d 10, 12, and is now before this Court for the third time. Remitting these litigants to the state courts for a construction of the 1931 oath would further protract these proceedings, already pending for almost two years, with only the likelihood that the case, perhaps years later, will return to the three-judge District Court and perhaps this Court for a decision on the identical issue herein decided. See Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77, 84; Public Utilities Comm’n of Ohio v. United Fuel Co., 317 U. S. 456. Meanwhile, where the vagueness of the statute deters constitutionally protected conduct, “the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151.

V.

As in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, supra, we do not question the power of a State to take proper measures safeguarding the public service from disloyal conduct. But measures which purport to define disloyalty must allow public servants to know what is and is not disloyal. “The fact . . . that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.” Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 495-496.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Clark,

whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins,

dissenting.

The Court strikes down, as unconstitutionally vague, two Acts of the State of Washington. The first, the Act of 1955, requires every state employee to swear or affirm that he is not a “subversive person” as therein defined. The second, the Act of 1931, which requires that another oath be taken by teachers, is declared void without the benefit of an opinion of either a state or federal court. I dissent as to both, the first on the merits, and the latter, because the Court refuses to afford the State an opportunity to interpret its own law.

I.

The Court says that the Act of 1955 is void on its face because it is “unduly vague, uncertain and broad.” The Court points out that the oath requires a teacher to “swear that he is not a subversive person: that he is not one who commits an act or who advises, teaches, abets or advocates by any means another person to commit or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow or alter, or to assist the overthrow or alteration, of the constitutional form of government by revolution, force or violence.” The Court further finds that the Act declares the Communist Party to be a subversive organization. From these premises, the Court then reasons that under the 1955 Act “any person who aids the Communist Party or teaches or advises known members of the Party is a subversive person” because “at some future date” such teaching may aid the activities of the Party. This reasoning continues with the assertion that “one cannot confidently assert that his counsel, aid, influence or support which adds to the resources, rights and knowledge of the Communist Party or its members does not aid the Party ... in furtherance of the stated purpose of overthrowing the Government by revolution, force, or violence.” The Court then interrogates itself: Does the statute reach “endorsement or support for Communist candidates for office? ... a lawyer who represents the Communist Party or its members? . . . [defense of the] constitutional rights of the Communist Party or its members ... [or support of] any cause which is likewise supported by Communists or the Communist Party?” Apparently concluding that the answers to these questions are unclear, the Court then declares the Act void, citing Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278 (1961). Let us take up this reasoning in reverse order.

First, Cramp is not apposite. The majority has failed to recognize that the statute in Cramp required an oath of much broader scope than the one in the instant case: Cramp involved an oath “that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party . . . .” That oath was replete with defects not present in the Washington oath. As Mr. Justice Stewart pointed out in Cramp:

“The provision of the oath here in question, it is to be noted, says nothing of advocacy of violent overthrow of state or federal- government. It says nothing of membership or affiliation with the Communist Party, past or present. The provision is completely lacking in these or any other terms susceptible of objective measurement.” At 286.

These factors which caused the Court to find the Cramp oath unconstitutionally vague are clearly not present in the Washington oath. Washington’s oath proscribes only the commission of an act of overthrow or alteration of the constitutional form of government by revolution, force or violence; or advising, teaching, abetting or advocating by any means another person to commit or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow or alter or to assist the overthrow or alteration of the constitutional form of government by revolution, force or violence. The defects noted by the Court when it passed on the Cramp oath have been cured in the Washington statute.

It is strange that the Court should find the language of this statute so profoundly vague when in 1951 it had no such trouble with the identical language presented by another oath in Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 341 U. S. 56. There, the constitutionality of Maryland’s Ober Law, written in language identical to Washington’s 1955 Act, was affirmed by a unanimous Court against the same attack of vagueness. It is unfortunate that Gerende is overruled so quickly. Other state laws have been copied from the Maryland Act — -just as Washington’s 1955 Act was — -primarily because of our approval of it, and now this Court would declare them void. Such action cannot command the dignity and respect due to the judicial process. It is, of course, absurd to say that, under the words of the Washington Act, a professor risks violation when he teaches German, English, history or any other subject included in the curriculum for a college degree, to a class in which a Communist Party member might sit. To so interpret the language of the Act is to extract more sunbeams from cucumbers than did Gulliver’s mad scientist. And to conjure up such ridiculous questions, the answers to which we all know or should know are in the negative, is to build up a whimsical and farcical straw man which is not only grim but Grimm.

In addition to the Ober Law the Court has also found that other statutes using similar language were not vague. An unavoidable example is the Smith Act which we upheld against an attack based on vagueness in the landmark case of Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494 (1951). The critical language of the Smith Act is again in the same words as the 1955 Washington Act.

“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States . . . .” 18 U. S. C. § 2385. (Emphasis supplied.)

The opinion of the Court in Dennis uses this language in discussing the vagueness claim:

“We agree that the standard as defined is not a neat, mathematical formulary. Like all verbaliza-tions it is subject to criticism on the score of indefiniteness. . . . We think [the statute] well serves to indicate to those who would advocate constitutionally prohibited conduct that there is a line beyond which they may not go — a line which they, in full knowledge of what they intend and the circumstances in which their activity takes place, will well appreciate and understand.” At 515-516.

It appears to me from the statutory language that Washington’s 1955 Act is much more clear than the Smith Act. Still the Court strikes it down. Where does this leave the constitutionality of the Smith Act?

II.

Appellants make other claims. They say that the 1955 Act violates their rights of association and free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But in light of Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U. S. 36 (1961); In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 (1961); Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485 (1952); Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U. S. 716 (1951); and American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382 (1950), this claim is frivolous. Likewise in view of the decision of Washington’s highest court that tenured employees would be entitled to a hearing, Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash. 2d 111, 131, 361 P. 2d 551, 563, the due process claim is without foundation. This conclusion would also apply to those employees without tenure, since they would be entitled to a hearing under Washington’s Civil Service Act, Rev. Code Wash. § 41.04 et seg. and its Administrative Procedure Act, Rev. Code Wash. § 34.04.010 et seq.

III.

The Supreme Court of Washington has never construed the oath of allegiance required by the 1931 Act. I agree with the District Court that Washington’s highest court should be afforded an opportunity to do so. As the District Court said:

“The granting or withholding of equitable or declaratory relief in federal court suits which seek to limit or control state action is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Accordingly, in the absence of a concrete factual showing that any plaintiff or any member of the classes of state employees here represented has suffered actual injury by reason of the application of the oath of allegiance statute (Chapter 103, Laws of 1931) this court will decline to render a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of that statute in advance of an authoritative construction by the Washington Supreme Court.” 215 F. Supp. 439, 455.

For these reasons, I dissent.

       “ ‘Subversive organization’ means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or 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 state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force or violence.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.010 (2).
      “ ‘Foreign subversive organization’ means any organization 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 state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, and to establish in place thereof any form of government the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under, the domination or control of any foreign government, organization, or individual.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.010 (3).
      “Communist party declared a subversive organization.
      “The communist party is a subversive organization within the purview of chapter 9.81 and membership in the communist party is a subversive activity thereunder.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.083.

       Although the 1931 Act has not been the subject of previous challenge, an attack upon the 1955 loyalty statute was instituted by two of the appellants in the present ease, Professors Howard Nostrand and Max Savelle, who brought a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington asking that Chapter 377, 'Laws of 1955, be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The Washington Supreme Court held that one section was unconstitutional but severable from the rest of the Act, whose validity was upheld. Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 335 P. 2d 10. On appeal to this Court the decision of the Washington court was vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether employees who refused to sign the oath would be afforded a hearing at which they could explain or defend the reasons for their refusal. Nostrand v. Little, 362 U. S. 474. The Washington Supreme Court held upon remand that since Professors Nostrand and Savelle were tenured professors the terms of their contracts and rules promulgated by the Board of Regents entitled them to a hearing. Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash. 2d 111, 361 P. 2d 551. This Court dismissed a further appeal, Nostrand v. Little, 368 U. S. 436. The issue we find dispositive of the case at bar was not presented to this Court in the above proceedings.

       “Oath Form A
      “STATE OF WASHINGTON

        “Statement and Oath for Teaching Faculty of the University of Washington

      “I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the state of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the state of Washington, reverence for law and order, and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States;
      “I further certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2), (3), and (5); RCW 9.81.060; RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083, which are printed on the reverse hereof; that I understand and am familiar with the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein defined; and
      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist party or knowingly of any other subversive organization.
      “I understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.
      (SIGNATURE)
      (title and department)
      “Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this day of.,19.
      NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OP WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT.

        “(To be executed in duplicate, one copy to be retained by individual.)
      “NOTE: Those desiring to affirm may strike the words 'swear' and 'sworn to’ and substitute ‘affirm’ and ‘affirmed,’ respectively.”

       “Oath Form B
      “STATE OF WASHINGTON

        “Statement and Oath for Staff of the University of Washington Other Than Teaching Faculty

      “I certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2), (3), and (5); RCW 9.81.060; RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083 which are printed on the reverse hereof; that I understand and am familiar with the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein defined; and
      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist party or knowingly of any other subversive organization.
      “I understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.
      (siGNAtube)
      (TITLE AND DEPARTMENT OR OFFICE)
      “Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this... day of.,19.
      NOTARY public IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT.
      “(To be executed in duplicate, one copy to be retained by individual.)
      “NOTE: Those desiring to affirm may strike the words ‘swear’ and ‘sworn to’ and substitute ‘affirm’ and ‘affirmed,’ respectively.”

       Since the ground we find dispositive immediately affects the professors and other state employees required to take the oath, and the interests of the students at the University in academic freedom are fully protected by a judgment in favor of the teaching personnel, we have no occasion to pass on the standing of the students to bring this suit.

       The drafters of the 1951 Subversive Activities Act stated to the Washington Legislature that “[t]he [Communist Party] dovetailed, nation-wide program is designed to . . . create unrest and civil strife, and impede the normal processes of state and national government, all to the end of weakening and ultimately destroying the United States as a constitutional republic and thereby facilitating the avowed Soviet purpose of substituting here a totalitarian dictatorship.” First Report of the Joint Legislative Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in Washington State, 1948, p. iv.

       The contention that the Court found no constitutional difficulties with identical definitions of subversive person and subversive organizations in Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U. S. 56, is without merit. It was forcefully argued in Gerende that candidates for state office in Maryland were required to take an oath incorporating a section of the Maryland statutes defining subversive person and organization in the identical terms challenged herein. But the Court rejected this interpretation of Maryland law and did not pass upon or approve the definitions of subversive person and organization contained in the Maryland statutes. Instead it made very clear that the judgment below was affirmed solely on the basis that the actual oath to be imposed under Maryland law requires one to swear that he is not a person who is engaged “ ‘in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,’ and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt.” Id., at 66-57 (emphasis in original). The Court said: “At the bar of this Court the Attorney 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 Appeals is Affirmed.’’ Id., at 57.

       It is also argued that § 2 of the Smith Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2385, upheld over a vagueness challenge in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, proscribes the same activity in the same language as the Washington statute. This argument is founded on a misreading of § 2 and Dennis v. United States, supra.

      That section provides:
      “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State ... by force or violence . . . .”
      The convictions under this provision were sustained in Dennis, supra, on the construction that the statute means “teaching and advocacy of action for the accomplishment of [overthrowing or destroying organized government] by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action ... as speedily as circumstances would permit.” Id., at 511-512. In connection with the vagueness attack, it was noted that “[t] his is a federal statute which we must interpret as well as judge. Herein lies the fallacy of reliance upon the manner in which this Court has treated judgments of state co.urts. . . .” Id., at 502.
      In reversing convictions under this section in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, the Court made quite clear exactly what all the above terms do and do not proscribe: “[T]he Smith Act reaches only advocacy of action for the overthrow of government by force and violence.” Id., at 324.

       Webster’s New Int. Dictionary (2d ed.), at 1288.

       “The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute which upon its face ... is so vague and indefinite as to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.” Stromberg v. California. 283 U. S. 359, 369. “[Sjtatutes restrictive of or purporting to place limits to those [First Amendment] freedoms must be narrowly drawn to meet the precise evil the legislature seeks to curb . . . and . . . the conduct proscribed must be defined specifically so that the person or persons affected remain secure and unrestrained in their rights to engage in activities not encompassed by the legislation.” United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U. S. 106, 141-142 (Rutledge, J., concurring).

       “When the validity of a state statute, challenged under the United States Constitution, is properly for adjudication before a United States District Court, reference to the state courts for construction of the statute should not automatically be made.” NAACP v. Ben

        nett, 360 U. S. 471. See also United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13 (D. C. E. D. S. C.), aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U. S. 281: “Though never interpreted by a state court, if a state statute is not fairly subject to an interpretation which will avoid or modify the federal constitutional question, it is the duty of a federal court to decide the federal question when presented to it.” Shelton v. McKinley, 174 F. Supp. 351 (D. C. E. D. Ark.) (abstention inappropriate where there are no substantial problems of statutory construction and delay would prejudice constitutional rights); All American Airways v. Village of Cedarhurst, 201 F. 2d 273 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Sterling Drug v. Anderson, 127 F. Supp. 511, 513 (D. C. E. D. Tenn.).

       See, e. g., Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496; Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc., 316 U. S. 168; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, C. I. O., v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364; City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639.

       In Musser v. Utah, 333 U. S. 95, the appellants were convicted of committing “acts injurious to public morals.” The vagueness challenge to the statute, either as applied or on its face, was raised for the first time in oral argument before this Court, and the Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a determination of whether the conviction for urging persons to commit polygamy rested solely on this broad-challenged provision. In Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242, the Communist Party of the State of Michigan and its secretary sought to enjoin on several constitutional grounds the application to them of a state statute, five days after its passage, requiring registration, under pain of criminal penalties, of “any organization which is substantially directed, dominated or controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or its satellites, or which . . . acts to further, the world communist movement” and of members of such an organization. They argued that the definitions were vague and failed to inform them if a local Communist organization and its members were required to register. The lower court took judicial notice of the fact that the Communist Party of the United States, with whom the local party was associated, was a part of the world Communist movement dominated by the Soviet Union, and held the statute constitutional in all other respects. This Court vacated the judgment and declined to pass on the appellants’ constitutional claims until the Michigan courts, in a suit already pending, construed the statutory terms and determined if they required the local Party and its secretary, without more, to register. The approach was that the constitutional claims, including the one founded on vagueness, would be wholly eliminated if the statute, as construed by the state court, did not require all local Communist organizations without substantial ties to a foreign country and their members to register. Stated differently, the question was whether this statute applied to these plaintiffs, a question to be authoritatively answered in the state courts.
      In Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund sought a declaratory judgment and injunction on several constitutional grounds in respect to numerous recently enacted state statutes. The lower court enjoined the implementation of three statutes, including one provision on vagueness grounds, and ordered abstention as to two others, finding them ambiguous. This Court ordered abstention as to all the statutes, finding that they were all susceptible of constructions that would limit or eliminate their effect on the litigative and legal activities of the NAACP and construction might thereby eliminate the necessity for passing on the many constitutional questions raised. The vagueness issue, for example, would not require adjudication if the state courts found that the challenged provisions did not restrict the activities of the NAACP or require the NAACP to register. Unlike the instant case, the necessity for deciding the federal constitutional issues in the above and other abstention cases turned on whether the restrictions or requirements of an uncertain or unclear state statute were imposed on the persons bringing the action or on their activities as defined in the complaint.

       See Clark, Federal Procedural Reform and States’ Rights, 40 Tex. L. Rev. 211 (1961); Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1358, 1363 (1960).

       “Where the disposition of a doubtful question of local law might terminate the entire controversy and thus make it unnecessary to decide a substantial constitutional question, considerations of equity justify a rule of abstention. But where, as here, no state court ruling on local law could settle the federal questions that necessarily remain, and where, as here, the litigation has already been in the federal courts an inordinately long time, considerations of equity require that the litigation be brought to an end as quickly as possible.” 317 U. S. 456, at 463.

      It has been contended that the crucial section of Maryland’s Ober Act, that which is identical to the Washington Act, was not before the Court in Gerende, but a review of the record in that case conclusively demonstrates to the contrary. Further, while the Gerende opinion was stated with a qualification, the fact remains that the Court approved the judgment of the Maryland court and rejected the argument that the Act was unconstitutionally vague.