Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Watkins v. United States (1957)

Read a random definition: Suitors' Fee Fund

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
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.