Notable Australian academic George Winterton described the case as "undoubtedly one of the High Court's most important decisions".

Before that, the ban on the Communist Party (now supporting the war after the invasion of the Soviet Union) was lifted by the Curtin government in December 1942.

To this end, it engaged in 'activities ... designed to ... overthrow ... the established system of government in Australia and the attainment of economic, industrial or political ends by force, ... intimidation or [fraud]', especially espionage, sabotage, treason or subversion, and promoted strikes to disrupt production in industries vital to Australia's security and defence, including coal-mining, steel, engineering, building, transport and power; and "(c) asserted that the measures taken by the Bill were necessary for Australia's defence and security and the execution and maintenance of its Constitution and laws, thereby tying the Bill's operative provisions to the powers cited in (a).

The Labor Party Opposition allowed it passage through the Senate on 19 October 1950 and the Government wasted no time in gaining royal assent and making the Act operative the following day.

Unlike the challenged law, the sedition provisions left questions of guilt to the courts to determine through criminal trials.

[1]: 259 This reasoning is predicated on the notion of judicial review, sometimes referred to as the principle in Marbury v Madison in recognition of its origins in the federal system of the United States of America.

Such a law as the Communist Party Dissolution Act could clearly be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of any of the Australian States.

118] had pronounced a different view, it might perhaps not arise even in the case of the Commonwealth Parliament; and there are those, even to-day, who disapprove of the doctrine of Marbury v. Madison (1803) 1 Cr.

118] is accepted as axiomatic, modified in varying degree in various cases (but never excluded) by the respect which the judicial organ must accord to opinions of the legislative and executive organs.Latham, the sole dissenter, found the act to be a valid exercise of the federal parliament's defence power.

His opinion sought to uphold parliamentary supremacy, on the grounds that the exercise of the defence power was inherently a matter for political rather than judicial judgment.

Justice Ian Callinan extensively quoted Latham in his opinion in Thomas v Mowbray (2007), relating to anti-terrorism laws.

[8] Later in the year, at the 1951 referendum, Menzies sought to amend the Constitution to permit the parliament to make laws in respect of Communists and Communism where this was necessary for the security of the Commonwealth.