Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Watkins v. United States (1957)

Read a random definition: equity security

A quick definition of Watkins v. United States (1957):

Watkins v. United States (1957) is a court case where the U.S. Supreme Court said that Congress cannot ask questions that are not related to the reason why a witness was summoned to testify. The case was about a man named John Watkins who was asked to testify about whether he was a member of the Communist Party. He denied it, but then the Committee on Un-American Activities asked him about other people he knew who might be communists. Watkins refused to answer and was sent to prison for a year. The Supreme Court said that the Committee's questions were too broad and violated Watkins' rights. They said that Congress can only ask questions that are related to their job, and that the Committee did not explain why their questions were important.

A more thorough explanation:

Watkins v. United States (1957) is a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was about whether Congress could investigate people for things that were not related to the reason they were called to testify. The Court said that Congress could not do this because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This means that Congress cannot force people to answer questions that are not related to the reason they were called to testify.

For example, in the case, John Watkins was called to testify about whether he was a member of the Communist Party. He denied the allegations, but then the Committee asked him about other people he knew who might be communists. Watkins refused to answer these questions because he did not think the Committee had the right to ask them. The Committee then held him in contempt and he was sentenced to one year in prison and a $100 fine. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the Committee's questions were not related to the reason he was called to testify.

This case was important because it set limits on Congress's power to investigate people. It said that Congress could only ask questions that were related to the reason the person was called to testify. This protects people's rights and ensures that Congress does not abuse its power.

watered stock | weight of evidence

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
MrThickRopes
15:43
Waves fo pm
MrThickRopes
15:43
trust da plan
15:49
@llama: YO thanks fam
Guys
Just toured the area I’m supposed to move to for school
And got chia pudding
And thought of y’all
17:24
@OrganicAcridWizard: Dry chia seeds or bust
17:46
WERE THEY SOAKED
17:47
@llama: more like let the deposit deadlines expire lolz
17:59
@c0bra1: yeah true,
They were fluffy like quinoa
Heathen
How far are y’all moving for school
time zones
over 1,000 miles
i live in literal alaska
Ok goals same
Not Alaska but 1000+
r y’all freaked
19:48
damn im only moving 500
19:48
feel like i will be more freaked when it gets to august tho rn it seems fake to me
20:18
Wrote my wisdom thing and with that I'm logging off, my friends you know where to find me my haters may you find peace in your lives and everyone else take care and kick this cycle's ass
MountainMamaMonster
2:10
meow
Not the furry
questionnnnnn - does anyone know what it means if you got the first feeler from gulc last week? can't tell if its something generic or something to get hopes up for.
16:22
For those accepted by the University of Utah in the past week--can you share when their published seating fee deadline is? I know the first one was April 15th...? THX!
MrThickRopes
18:28
Fo pm gon be a movviiiiieeee tmrw
MrThickRopes
18:29
I can feeeeeel iiiiit
18:48
@WinnieCOgirl: The Seat Deposit & Enrollment Certification form (due on 05/02/2025) The Seat Deposit (due on 05/02/2025)
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.