318 JACKSON, J., dissenting. If, however, a lawyer is to be called upon to be the first example of condemnation for an offense so tenuous, vague and novel, the least courts should require is that the case against him be clearly proved. I shall give but two of several reasons why I think that standard was not met in this case. First, the Patent Office committee, convened to hear the charges against Dorsey, approached its duty upon the premise that this Court's Hazel-Atlas decision established not only Hartford-Empire's guilt but also Dorsey's, unless he should clear his name. The records from that case and from United States v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra, not only were introduced against Dorsey, who was neither a party nor of counsel in either, but were the sole evidence to support the direct case against him. The committee's recommendation was apparently based upon its conclusion that he failed in the imposed task of proving his innocence. I think this was error of a serious kind. It should be remembered that our conclusion in that case was reached upon the total effect of many events participated in by many persons whose acts were attributable to Hartford-Empire as their principal. A considerable part was not attributable to Dorsey. The most important and prejudicial of these circumstances which incriminate Hartford-Empire, but not Dorsey, is involved in another error, which I think deprived the accused of a fair trial. I think that Dorsey suffered prejudice again from receipt of evidence concerning Hartford-Empire's later payment to Clarke and the reliance upon that fact to find Dorsey guilty. This payment was not made as an inducement to sign the article and was made long after Dorsey's relationship to the case had ceased. The Government frankly concedes that there is no evidence it JACKSON, J., dissenting. 338 U.S. was made with the approval or even knowledge of Dorsey. The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed its finding, that "There is nothing in the evidence that connects Dorsey with the payment of any money to Clarke." We are bound by these concurrent findings. Nevertheless, evidence of this payment was received against Dorsey and was thrown in the scales against him in the decision. Referring to the payment of money to Clarke, the Patent Office committee report on which Dorsey was disbarred says: "Nearly six years elapsed after the article was filed in the Patent Office before other events, relevant to the conduct of these respondents with respect to it, occurred. These subsequent events cast their light backwardly on the activities of the parties during the time of preparation and filing of the Clarke article, giving added illumination with regard to the purposes, understandings, and intentions of respondents at that time." (Italics supplied.) Thus it is clear that Hartford-Empire's later corruption in trying to suppress evidence, which we properly considered as a factor in deciding its case, was the decisive factor in finding Dorsey guilty, though he admittedly had no part in it. Without this misapplication of evidence, nothing in the record explains or excuses the harsh judgment of disbarment. Even though courts lean backward to avoid suspicion of partiality to men of our own profession, they should not fear to protect a lawyer against loss of his right to practice on such a record as this. Syllabus. PARKER ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. NO. 49. CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.* Argued November 8, 1949.-Decided December 5, 1949. A state court dismissed actions by civil service employees for relief against enforcement of a "loyalty" program by a county, without considering whether disclosure of information sought by a prescribed affidavit would have penal consequences, and its decision left in doubt whether it had passed on the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of sanctions (if there were any) for failure to execute the affidavit. By a subsequent order, not involved in the judgments now before this Court, the county explicitly adopted sanctions for failure to execute affidavits; and the validity of this latter order was attacked for the first time in litigation still pending in the state courts. Since this latter litigation may be decided in favor of the employees on grounds of state law, held: The constitutional questions raised in these cases are not ripe for adjudication, and the writs of certiorari heretofore granted are dismissed. Pp. 328-333. 88 Cal. App. 2d 481, 199 P. 2d 429, certiorari dismissed. A state trial court dismissed suits by certain county employees for relief against a so-called "loyalty test" prescribed by the county's Board of Supervisors. The State District Court of Appeal affirmed. 88 Cal. App. 2d 481, 199 P. 2d 429. The State Supreme Court denied discretionary review. This Court granted certiorari. 337 U. S. 929. Writs of certiorari dismissed, p. 333. John T. McTernan argued the cause for petitioners in No. 49. With him on the brief was Lee Pressman. *Together with No. 50, Steiner v. County of Los Angeles et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Opinion of the Court. 338 U.S. A. L. Wirin argued the cause for petitioner in No. 50. With him on the brief were Fred Okrand, Edward J. Ennis, Osmond K. Fraenkel and Arthur Garfield Hays. Gerald G. Kelly argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Harold W. Kennedy. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by George Slaff for the Los Angeles Area Council of the American Veterans Committee; Loren Miller for the National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles and Hollywood Chapters; Samuel A. Neuburger for the Civil Rights Congress; and Thomas R. Jones for the Council on African Affairs, Inc. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. In No. 49, twenty-five classified civil servants of the County of Los Angeles brought an action in the Superior Court of that County, and in No. 50, suit was brought by one such employee. The respective plaintiffs sought relief against enforcement by the County and its officials of what is colloquially known as a loyalty test, and they did so for themselves and "in a representative capacity. . . on behalf of 20,000 employees of Los Angeles County similarly situated." The plaintiffs, petitioners here, alleged that on August 26, 1947, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles adopted as part of its "Loyalty Check" program the requirement that all County employees execute a prescribed affidavit. It consisted of four parts, fully set forth in the Appendix. By Part A, each employee is required to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of California; by Part B, he forswears that since December 7, 1941, he has been a member of any organization advocating the 327 Opinion of the Court. forcible overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California or of the County of Los Angeles, that he now advocates such overthrow, or that he will in the future so advocate directly or through an organization; by Part C, he is required to list his aliases; and by Part D, he is asked to indicate whether he has ever been "a member of, or directly or indirectly supported or followed" any of an enumerated list of 145 organizations. Asserting fear of penalizing consequences from the loyalty program, and claiming that the law of California and the Constitution of the United States barred coercive measures by the County to secure obedience to the alleged affidavit requirement, petitioners brought these actions. Demurrers to the complaints were sustained by the Superior Court and its judgments were affirmed by the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District. 88 Cal. App. 2d 481, 199 P. 2d 429. After the Supreme Court of California denied discretionary review we brought the case here because, on the showing then before us, serious questions seemed raised as to the scope of a State's power to safeguard its security with due regard for the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 337 U. S. 929. In view, however, of the circumstances that became manifest after the cases came to argument, we are precluded from reaching these constitutional issues on their merits. To begin with, the California decision under review does not tell us unambiguously what compulsion, if any, the loyalty order of August 26, 1947, carried. It is unequivocally clear that the lower court refused to decide whether an employee who discloses his so-called "subversive" activities or connections may for that reason be discharged. It is not clear, however, whether, as petitioners contend, the lower court meant to hold that the |