357 U.S. 513 (1958)
The appellants in these consolidated cases are honorably discharged veterans of World War II who sought the veterans' property-tax exemption provided by Article XIII, section 1 1/4 of the California Constitution.1
Under California law applicants for the exemption must annually complete a standard form of application and file it with the local assessor.2 The form was revised in 1954 to add an oath by the applicant.3 The oath stated that the signer does not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.4 Nor does the signer advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in event of hostilities. Each appellant refused to subscribe the oath and struck it from the form which he executed and filed for the tax year 1954-1955.5
The respective county assessors denied the exemptions solely because of the refusal to execute the oath.6 The denials rested on Article XX, section 19 of the California Constitution, adopted at the general election of November 4, 1952.7 That provision states that no person or organization advocating the overthrow of government by force or violence shall receive any exemption.8 It also bars those advocating support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities from receiving exemptions from taxes imposed by the state or its political subdivisions. To implement the amendment the Legislature enacted section 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.9 Section 32 requires every claimant for a property-tax exemption other than the householder's exemption to include on the claim a declaration that the claimant does not engage in the activities described in the constitutional amendment.10
Appellant in No. 483 sued for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.11 Appellant in No. 484 sued in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco to recover taxes paid under protest and for declaratory relief.12 The trial courts reached differing results.13 The Supreme Court of California sustained the assessors' actions against the appellants' claims of constitutional invalidity, adopting the reasoning of its opinion in the companion case First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles.14 The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals from the judgments of the California Supreme Court.15
Whether the California constitutional and statutory scheme that conditions a veterans' property tax exemption on execution of a loyalty oath regarding non-advocacy of government overthrow limits freedom of speech?16
Yes. The appellants are honorably discharged veterans of World War II who claimed the veterans' property-tax exemption but refused to subscribe the required oath and struck it from the form filed for tax year 1954-1955.20 This resulted in denial of the exemption solely for that refusal under Article XX section 19 and section 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.21 The denial penalizes the appellants for speech they might otherwise engage in.22
It necessarily coerces them to refrain from the proscribed advocacy to obtain the exemption.23
The scheme limits freedom of speech.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
California in effect has imposed a tax on belief and expression.25 That levy constitutes a palpable violation of the First Amendment applicable to the States.26 This case offers another example of government efforts to impose penalties on those suspected of being Communists or unwilling to swear loyalty at all times.27
The whole business of penalizing people because of their views is repugnant to the principles of freedom on which the Nation was founded.28 If it be assumed that California may tax the expression of views advocating the overthrow of the government by force or violence, the procedures violate due process.29
Whether the California procedure that places the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion on the taxpayer to establish non-advocacy satisfies due process when eligibility for the tax exemption turns on questions of speech?30
When the constitutional right to speak is sought to be deterred by a State's general taxing program, due process demands that the speech be unencumbered until the State comes forward with sufficient proof to justify its inhibition.31 The procedures by which facts are determined assume importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive rule.32 The more important the rights at stake the more important the procedural safeguards must be.33
No. Under the established facts the appellants as taxpayers bear the affirmative burden of proof in court as well as before the assessor.34 They must show they are not persons who advocate overthrow of the government by force or violence or support of a foreign government against the United States.35 This burden lies on them throughout the judicial and administrative proceedings to persuade the assessor or court that they fall outside the proscribed class.36 The vice of this procedure is that where speech falls close to the line separating lawful and unlawful advocacy the possibility of mistaken factfinding will create the danger that legitimate utterance will be penalized.37
Claimants must steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the State bore the burdens.38 This must necessarily result in deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.39
The procedure does not satisfy due process.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Black
The State by the device of the loyalty oath places the burden of proving loyalty on the citizen.41 That procedural device goes against the grain of our constitutional system.42 Every man is presumed innocent until guilt is established.43
This inverts the order of things by obliging the citizen to establish his own innocence to avoid the penalty rather than requiring the State to prove guilt.44 If the aim is to penalize advocacy the law must fall because the First Amendment protects advocacy and belief.45 Government may not probe beliefs or withhold privileges because of what a citizen thinks.46
Even if the Court's interpretation of California law is correct I cannot agree that due process requires California to bear the burden of proof under the circumstances of this case.47 This is not a criminal proceeding.48 Appellants are free to speak as they wish.49
Refusal of the taxing sovereign's grace to avoid subsidizing activity contrary to policy is an accepted practice.50 The interest of the State justifies the far less severe measure of denying a tax exemption.51 The majority's distinctions from prior oath cases are unpersuasive because the further burden of proving declarations true appears close to being de minimis so far as impact on freedom of speech is concerned.52