United States v. Brown (381 U.S. 437)/Opinion of the Court

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, was enacted to replace § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union's access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union's officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party.

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with 'knowingly and wilfully serv(ing) as a member of an executive board of a labor organization * *  * while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.' It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that § 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899, 85 S.Ct. 187, 13 L.Ed.2d 174.

Respondent urges-in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below-that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution. We agree that § 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments.

The provisions outlawing bills of attainder were adopted by the Constitutional Convention unanimously, and without debate.

'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed     (by the Congress).' Art. I, § 9, cl. 3.

'No State shall * *  * pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post      facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts *  *      * .' Art. I, § 10.

A logical starting place for an inquiry into the meaning of the prohibition is its historical background. The bill of attainder, a parliamentary act sentencing to death one or more specific persons, was a device often resorted to in sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century England for dealing with persons who had attempted, or threatened to attempt, to overthrow the government. In addition to the death sentence, attainder generally carried with it a 'corruption of blood,' which meant that the attainted party's heirs could not inherit his property. The 'bill of pains and penalties' was identical to the bill of attainder, except that it prescribed a penalty short of death, e.g., banishment, deprivation of the right to vote, or exclusion of the designated party's sons from Parliament. Most bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties named the parties to whom they were to apply; a few, however, simply described them. While some left the designated parties a way of escaping the penalty, others did not. The use of bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties was not limited to England. During the American Revolution, the legislatures of all thirteen States passed statutes directed against the Tories; among these statutes were a large number of bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties.

While history thus provides some guidelines, the wide variation in form, purpose and effect of ante-Constitution bills of attainder indicates that the proper scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause, and its relevance to contemporary problems, must ultimately be sought by attempting to discern the reasons for its inclusion in the Constitution, and the evils it was designed to eliminate. The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicates that the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply-trial by legislature.

The Constitution divides the National Government into three branches-Legislative, Executive and Judicial. This 'separation of powers' was obviously not instituted with the idea that it would promote governmental efficiency. It was, on the contrary, looked to as a bulwark against tyranny. For if governmental power is fractionalized, if a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will. James Madison wrote:

'The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and     judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,      and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may      justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'

The doctrine of separated powers is implemented by a number of constitutional provisions, some of which entrust certain jobs exclusively to certain branches, while others say that a given task is not to be performed by a given branch. For example, Article III's grant of 'the judicial Power of the United States' to federal courts has been interpreted both as a grant of exclusive authority over certain areas. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60, and as a limitation upon the judiciary, a declaration that certain tasks are not to be performed by courts, e.g., Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246. Compare Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153.

The authors of the Federalist Papers took the position that although under some systems of government (most notably the one from which the United States had just broken), the Executive Department is the branch most likely to forget the bounds of its authority, 'in a representative republic * *  * where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly *  *  * which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude; yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions *  *  * ,' barriers had to be erected to ensure that the legislature would not overstep the bounds of its authority and perform the functions of the other departments. The Bill of Attainder Clause was regarded as such a barrier. Alexander Hamilton wrote:

'Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of     heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting      into the government principles and precedents which      afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the     doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and      banishment by acts of the legislature. The dangerous     consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature     can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by      general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a      small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an      oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom      particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or      trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the      innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty     applied to such a government, would be a mockery of common      sense.'

Thus the Bill of Attainder Clause not only was intended as one implementation of the general principle of fractionalized power, but also reflected the Framers' belief that the Legislative Branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness, of, and levying appropriate punishment upon, specific persons.

'Every one must concede that a legislative body, from its     numbers and organization, and from the very intimate      dependence of its members upon the people, which renders them      liable to be peculiarly susceptible to popular clamor, is not      properly constituted to try with coolness, caution, and      impartiality a criminal charge, especially in those cases in      which the popular feeling is strongly excited,-the very class      of cases most likely to be prosecuted by this mode.'

By banning bills of attainder, the Framers of the Constitution sought to guard against such dangers by limiting legislatures to the task of rule-making. 'It is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society; the application of those rules to individuals in society would seem to be the duty of other departments.' Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136, 3 L.Ed. 162.

It is in this spirit that the Bill of Attainder Clause was consistently interpreted by this Court-until the decision in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925, which we shall consider hereafter. In 1810, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138, 3 L.Ed. 162, stated that '(a) bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.' This means, of course, that what were known at common law as bills of pains and penalties are outlawed by the Bill of Attainder Clause. The Court's pronouncement therefore served notice that the Bill of Attainder Clause was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups. See also Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 286, 6 L.Ed. 606.

The approach which Chief Justice Marshall had suggested was followed in the twin post-Civil War cases of Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356, and Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366. Cummings involved the constitutionality of amendments to the Missouri Constitution of 1865 which provided that no one could engage in a number of specified professions (Cummings was a priest) unless he first swore that he had taken no part in the rebellion against the Union. At issue in Garland was a federal statute which required attorneys to take a similar oath before they could practice in federal courts. This Court struck down both provisions as bills of attainder on the ground that they were legislative acts inflicting punishment on a specific group: clergymen and lawyers who had taken part in the rebellion and therefore could not truthfully take the oath. In reaching its result, the Court emphatically rejected the argument that the constitutional prohibition outlawed only a certain class of legislatively imposed penalties:

'The deprivation of any rights, civil or political,     previously enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances      attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this      fact. Disqualification from office may be punishment, as in     cases of conviction upon impeachment. Disqualification from     the pursuits of a lawful avocation, or from positions of      trust, or from the privilege of appearing in the courts, or      acting as an executor, administrator, or guardian, may also,      and often has been, imposed as punishment.' 4 Wall., at 320.

The next extended discussion of the Bill of Attainder Clause came in 1946, in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252, where the Court invalidated § 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1943, 57 Stat. 431, 450, which prohibited payment of further salary to three named federal employees, as a bill of attainder.

'(L)egislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply     either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict      punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of      attainder prohibited by the Constitution. * *  * This      permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the      Government is punishment, and of a most severe type. * *  * No      one would think that Congress could have passed a valid law,      stating that after investigation it had found Lovett, Dodd,      and Watson 'guilty' of the crime of engaging in 'subversive      activities,' defined that term for the first time, and      sentenced them to perpetual exclusion from any government      employment. Section 304, while it does not use that language,     accomplishes that result.' Id., at 315-316, 66 S.Ct., at      1079.

Under the line of cases just outlined, § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act plainly constitutes a bill of attainder. Congress undoubtedly possesses power under the Commerce Clause to enact legislation designed to keep from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to bring about political strikes. In § 504, however, Congress has exceeded the authority granted it by the Constitution. The statute does not set forth a generally applicable rule decreeing that any person who commits certain acts or possesses certain characteristics (acts and characteristics which, in Congress' view, make them likely to initiate political strikes) shall not hold union office, and leave to courts and juries the job of deciding what persons have committed the specified acts or possess the specified characteristics. Instead, it designates in no uncertain terms the persons who possess the feared characteristics and therefore cannot hold union office without incurring criminal liability members of the Communist Party.

Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 6 L.Ed.2d 625, lends support to our conclusion. That case involved an appeal from an order by the Control Board ordering the Communist Party to register as a 'Communist-action organization,' under the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 50 U.S.C. § 781 et seq. (1958 ed.). The definition of 'Communist-action organization' which the Board is to apply is set forth in § 3 of the Act:

'(A)ny organization in the United States * *  * which (i) is      substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the      foreign government or foreign organization controlling the      world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this      title, and (ii) operates primarily to advance the objectives      of such world Communist movement *  *  * .' 64 Stat. 989, 50 U.S.C. § 782     (1958 ed.).

A majority of the Court rejected the argument that the Act was a bill of attainder, reasoning that § 3 does not specify the persons or groups upon which the deprivations set forth in the Act are to be imposed, but instead sets forth a general definition. Although the Board had determined in 1953 that the Communist Party was a 'Communist-action organization,' the Court found the statutory definition not to be so narrow as to insure that the Party would always come within it:

'In this proceeding the Board has found, and the Court of     Appeals has sustained its conclusion, that the Communist      Party, by virtue of the activities in which it now engages,      comes within the terms of the Act. If the Party should at any     time choose to abandon these activities, after it is once      registered pursuant to § 7, the Act provides adequate means      of relief.' 367 U.S., at 87, 81 S.Ct., at 1405.

The entire Court did not share the view of the majority that § 3's definition constituted rule-making rather than specification. See also Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles, 341 U.S. 716, 723, 71 S.Ct. 909, 914, 95 L.Ed. 1317. However, language incorporated in the majority opinion indicates that there was agreement on one point: by focusing upon 'the crucial constitutional significance of what Congress did when it rejected the approach of outlawing the Party by name and accepted instead a statutory program regulating not enumerated organizations but designated activities,' 367 U.S., at 84-85, 81 S.Ct., at 1404, the majority clearly implied that if the Act had applied to the Communist Party by name, it would have been a bill of attainder:

'The Act is not a bill of attainder. It attaches not to     specified organizations but to described activities in which an organization may or may not engage. * *  * The      Subversive Activities Control Act *  *  * requires the      registration only of organizations which, after the date of      the Act, are found to be under the direction, domination, or      control of certain foreign powers and to operate primarily to      advance certain objectives. This finding must be made after     full administrative hearing, subject to judicial review which      opens the record for the reviewing court's determination      whether the administrative findings as to fact are supported      by the preponderance of the evidence.' Id., at 86-87, 81      S.Ct., at 1405.

In this case no disagreement over whether the statute in question designates a particular organization can arise, for § 504 in terms inflicts its disqualification upon members of the Communist Party. The moment § 504 was enacted, respondent was given the choice of declining a leadership position in his union or incurring criminal liability.

The Solicitor General points out that in Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. Agnew, 329 U.S. 441, 67 S.Ct. 411, 91 L.Ed. 408, this Court applied § 32 of the Banking Act of 1933, which provides:

'No officer, director, or employee of any corporation or     unincorporated association, no partner or employee of any      partnership, and no individual, primarily engaged in the      issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution,      at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation,      of stocks, bonds, or other similar securities, shall serve      the same time as an officer, director, or employee of any      member bank except in limited classes of cases in which the      Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may allow      such service by general regulations when in the judgment of      the said Board it would not unduly influence the investment      policies of such member bank or the advice it gives its      customers regarding investments.'

He suggests that for purposes of the Bill of Attainder Clause, such conflict-of-interest laws are not meaningfully distinguishable from the statute before us. We find this argument without merit. First, we note that § 504, unlike § 32 of the Banking Act, inflicts its deprivation upon the members of a political group thought to present a threat to the national security. As we noted above, such groups were the targets of the overwhelming majority of English and early American bills of attainder. Second, § 32 incorporates no judgment censuring or condemning any man or group of men. In enacting it, Congress relied upon its general knowledge of human psychology, and concluded that the concurrent holding of the two designated positions would present a temptation to any man-not just certain men or members of a certain political party. Thus insofar as § 32 incorporates a condemnation, it condemns all men. Third, we cannot accept the suggestion that § 32 constitutes an exercise in specification rather than rule-making. It seems to us clear that § 32 establishes an objective standard of conduct. Congress determined that a person who both (a) held a position in a bank which could be used to influence the investment policies of the bank or its customers, and (b) was in a position to benefit financially from investment in the securities handled by a particular underwriting house, might well be tempted to 'use his influence in the bank to involve it or its customers in securities which his underwriting house has in its portfolio or has committed itself to take.' 329 U.S., at 447, 67 S.Ct., at 414. In designating bank officers, directors and employees as those persons in position (a), and officers, directors, partners and employees of underwriting houses as those persons in position (b), Congress merely expressed the characteristics it was trying to reach in an alternative, shorthand way. That Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to a specific group of men is well demonstrated by the fact that § 32 provides that the prescribed disqualification should not obtain whenever the Board of Governors determined that 'it would not unduly influence the investment policies of such member bank or the advice it gives its customers regarding investments'. We do not suggest that such an escape clause is essential to the constitutionality of § 32, but point to it only further to point up the infirmity of the suggestion that § 32, like § 504, incorporates an empirical judgment of, and inflicts its deprivation upon, a particular group of men.

It is argued, however, that in § 504 Congress did no more than it did in enacting § 32: it promulgated a general rule to the effect that persons possessing characteristics which make them likely to incite political strikes should not hold union office, and simply inserted in place of a list of those characteristics an alternative, shorthand criterion-membership in the Communist Party. Again, we cannot agree. The designation of Communists as those persons likely to cause political strikes is not the substitution of a semantically equivalent phrase; on the contrary, it rests, as the Court in Douds explicitly recognized, 339 U.S., at 389, 70 S.Ct., at 679, upon an empirical investigation by Congress of the acts, characteristics and propensities of Communist Party members. In a number of decisions, this Court has pointed out the fallacy of the suggestion that membership in the Communist Party, or any other political organization, can be regarded as an alternative, but equivalent, expression for a list of undesirable characteristics. For, as the Court noted in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 136, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1342, 87 L.Ed. 1796, 'under our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of mere association, and * *  * men in adhering to a political party or other organization notoriously do not subscribe unqualifiedly to all of its platforms or asserted principles.' Just last Term, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992, we held § 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act to violate the Constitution because it 'too broadly and indiscriminately' restricted constitutionally protected freedoms. One of the factors which compelled us to reach this conclusion was that § 6 inflicted its deprivation upon all members of the Communist organizations without regard to whether there existed any demonstrable relationship between the characteristics of the person involved and the evil Congress sought to eliminate. Id., at 509-511, 84 S.Ct., at 1665-1666. These cases are relevant to the question before us. Even assuming that Congress had reason to conclude that some Communists would use union positions to bring about political strikes, 'it cannot automatically be inferred that all members shar(e) their evil purposes or participat(e) in their illegal conduct.' Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of State of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232, 246, 77 S.Ct. 752, 760, 1 L.Ed.2d 796. In utilizing the term 'members of the Communist Party' to designate those persons who are likely to incite political strikes, it plainly is not the case that Congress has merely substituted a convenient shorthand term for a list of the characteristics it was trying to reach.

The Solicitor General argues that § 504 is not a bill of attainder because the prohibition it imposes does not constitute 'punishment.' In support of this conclusion, he urges that the statute was enacted for preventive rather than retributive reasons-that its aim is not to punish Communists for what they have done in the past, but rather to keep them from positions where they will in the future be able to bring about undesirable events. He relies on American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925, which upheld § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of the statute presently before us. In Douds the Court distinguished Cummings, Garland and Lovett on the ground that in those cases

'the individuals involved were in fact being punished for     past actions; whereas in this case they are subject to      possible loss of position only because there is substantial      ground for the congressional judgment that their beliefs and      loyalties will be transformed into future conduct.' Id., at      413, 70 S.Ct. at 691.

This case is not necessarily controlled by Douds. For to prove its assertion that § 9(h) was preventive rather than retributive in purpose, the Court in Douds focused on the fact that members of the Communist Party could escape from the class of persons specified by Congress simply by resigning from the Party:

'Here the intention is to forestall future dangerous acts;     there is no one who may not by a voluntary alteration of the      loyalties which impel him to action, become eligible to sign      the affidavit. We cannot conclude that this section is a bill     of attainder.' Id., at 414, 70 S.Ct. at 692.

Section 504, unlike § 9(h), disqualifies from the holding of union office not only present members of the Communist Party, but also anyone who has within the past five years been a member of the Party. However, even if we make the assumption that the five-year provision was inserted not out of desire to visit retribution but purely out of a belief that failure to include it would lead to pro forma resignations from the Party which would not decrease the threat of political strikes, it still clearly appears that § 504 inflicts 'punishment' within the meaning of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It would be archaic to limit the definition of 'punishment' to 'retribution.' Punishment serves several purposes; retributive, rehabilitative, deterrent-and preventive. One of the reasons society imprisons those convicted of crimes is to keep them from inflicting future harm, but that does not make imprisonment any the less punishment.

Historical considerations by no means compel restriction of the bill of attainder ban to instances of retribution. A number of English bills of attainder were enacted for preventive purposes that is, the legislature made a judgment, undoubtedly based largely on past acts and associations (as § 504 is) that a given person or group was likely to cause trouble (usually, overthrow the government) and therefore inflicted deprivations upon that person or group in order to keep it from bringing about the feared event. It is also clear that many of the early American bills attainting the Tories were passed in order to impede their effectively resisting the Revolution.

'In the progress of the conflict, and particularly in its     earliest periods, attainder and confiscation had been      resorted to generally, throughout the continent, as a means      of war. But it is a fact important to the history of the     revolting colonies, that the acts prescribing penalties,      usually offered to the persons against whom they were      directed the option of avoiding them, by acknowledging their      allegiance to the existing governments.

'It was a preventive, not a vindictive policy. In the same     humane spirit, as the contest approached its close, and the      necessity of these severities diminished, many of the states      passed laws offering pardons to those who had been disfranchised, and restoring them to      the enjoyment of their property *  *  * .'

Thus Justice Iredell was on solid historical ground when he observed, in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 399-400, 1 L.Ed. 648, that 'attainders, on the principle of retaliation and proscription, have marked all the vicissitudes of party triumph.' (Emphasis supplied.)

We think that the Court in Douds misread United States v. Lovett when it suggested, 339 U.S., at 413, 70 S.Ct., at 691, that that case could be distinguished on the ground that the sanction there imposed was levied for purely retributive reasons. In Lovett the Court, after reviewing the legislative history of § 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act, 328 U.S., at 308-313, 66 S.Ct., at 1075-1077, concluded that the statute was the product of a congressional drive to oust from government persons whose (congressionally determined) 'subversive' tendencies made their continued employment dangerous to the national welfare: 'the purpose of all who sponsored Section 304 * *  * clearly was to 'purge' the then existing and all future lists of Government employees of those whom Congress deemed guilty of 'subversive activities' and therefore 'unfit' to hold a federal job.' Id., at 314, 66 S.Ct., at 1078. Similarly, the purpose of the statute before us is to purge the governing boards of labor unions of those whom Congress regards as guilty of subversive acts and associations and therefore unfit to fill positions which might affect interstate commerce.

The Solicitor General urges us to distinguish Lovett on the ground that the statute struck down there 'singled out three identified individuals.' It is of course true that § 504 does not contain the words 'Archie Brown,' and that it inflicts its deprivation upon more than three people. However, the decisions of this Court, as well as the historical background of the Bill of Attainder Clause, make it crystal clear that these are distinctions without a difference. It was not uncommon for English acts of attainder to inflict their deprivations upon relatively large groups of people, sometimes by description rather than nane. Moreover, the statutes voided in Cummings and Garland were of this nature. We cannot agree that the fact that § 504 inflicts its deprivation upon the membership of the Communist Party rather than upon a list of named individuals takes it out of the category of bills of attainder.

We do not hold today that Congress cannot weed dangerous persons out of the labor movement, any more than the Court held in Lovett that subversives must be permitted to hold sensitive government positions. Rather, we make again the point made in Lovett: that Congress must accomplish such results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied. Under our Constitution, Congress possesses full legislative authority, but the task of adjudication must be left to other tribunals.

This Court is always reluctant to declare that an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, but in this case we have no alternative. As Alexander Hamilton observed:

'By a limited constitution, I understand one which contains     certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority;      such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of      attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations     of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than      through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it      must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of      the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of     particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.'

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice STEWART join, dissenting.