U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Involving Communist Party Members in International Context: Schneiderman v. U.S. (1943) and Yates v. U.S. (1957)

In the United States, federal judges deal with cases involving federal law or the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Federal judges are appointed by the president with consent of the Senate and hold lifetime tenure, but that does not mean that federal judges are not political. That is especially the case with the U.S. Supreme Court where nearly every case involves an interpretation of the Constitution. For all judges, there is a long-standing expectation that decisions will be based on a precedent set by a past decision in a similar case. The most important Supreme Court decisions have been those that break with past precedent or create a new precedent. The most controversial decisions – those that overturn old precedents and create a new precedent – often reflect larger political patterns in the nation.A few Supreme Court decisions seem to reflect changes in the nation’s place in international affairs. Two cases, both involving members of the U.S. Communist Party, illustrate how those decisions seem to reflect changes in the international context. It has always been obvious that changes in the Court’s membership may bring changes in precedent. The two cases in question not only show the potential influence of international affairs but also the importance of changes in the Court’s membership.Key Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights and civil liberties have usually come from cases involving racial, religious, gender, or political minorities. The Communist Party left only a very small impression on state and local political systems, but its legal battles left a more lasting imprint on the nation’s civil liberties. In these two cases involving prominent Communist Party members, there are indications that changes in international affairs and in the membership of the court led to, or permitted, a redefinition of civil liberties.