The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.

The House of Representatives held him in contempt of Congress to refusing to answer these questions, and a U.S. attorney obtained conviction against him.

Justice Harlan's opinion stated that "Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue involves a balancing of the competing private and public interests.

"[2] Harlan then struck a balance in favor of the government: "That Congress has wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity in this Country, and to conduct appropriate investigations in aid thereof, is hardly debatable.

Second, the Court's "balancing test" as to the applicability of First Amendment rights was not the way to determine the scope of freedom of speech, and if it were, the Court should have balanced the interest of society in "being able to join organizations, advocate causes and make political 'mistakes'" against the government's limited interest in making laws in the area of free speech..." Third, "the chief aim, purpose, and practice of the HUAC... is to try witnesses and punish them because they are or have been Communists or because they refuse or admit or deny Communist affiliations.