The first court action was taken by a Supreme Court justice in Troy, who, upon the insistence of the Communist Party, issued a stay to the Regents and ordered them to show cause why they should not be permanently enjoined from enforcing the Feinberg Law. The New York City Teachers Union (C.I.O.) gained a similar stay against the city Board of Education from a Brooklyn justice of the Supreme Court.

While these stays kept the Feinberg Law inoperative, four groups prepared suits testing the law's constitutionality; officials of the state Communist Party; a group consisting of four New York school teachers, one former teacher, and one former Board of Education member; the New York Teachers Union, and a group of eight taxpayers.

The suits brought by the first two groups were decided on November 28, when Supreme Court Justice Harry E. Schirick of Albany ruled that the Feinberg Law was unconstitutional and permanently restrained the Board of Regents from enforcing it.

The issue, Judge Schirick said, was not whether or not there was a constitutional right to be a teacher, but whether or not the grounds for denying this right or privilege were constitutional. Schirick decided that the grounds were not constitutional for two reasons:

1. Since the law prescribed a finding of guilt (against the "subversive" groups) without judicial trial, it was a bill of attainder and thus invalid.

2. The law violated due process of law because; it was too vague, "a 'dragnet' which may enmesh anyone who agitates for a change of government"; it lacked provisions for judicial proof of individual membership in subversive groups; it set up a "presumption of (organizational) guilt"; and the law constituted 'guilt by association' with a vengeance."

A similar ruling was made by Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Murray Hearn two weeks later in the suits brought by the Teachers Union and individual tax-payers. Hearn also voided the Feinberg Law and ordered the New York City Board of Education not to enforce it. His decision closely resembled Schirick's decision, but Hearn added the complaint that a teacher's "rights on appeal are ambiguous and essentially inadequate."

Sustains Law

Both the Communist and anti-Communist groups opposing the Feinberg law rejoiced in these two decisions, but the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ended the celebrations three months later when it sustained the Feinberg law.

Judge Schirick's decision was reversed on March 8. The Third Department of the Appellate Division threw out the Communist Party suit on the grounds that it was "moot," with no personal rights affected. In the other suit, brought by present and former teachers, Judge Christopher Heffernan ruled that the objections to the Feinberg Law were invalid because "there is no constitutional right to be a teacher." He added that the Law protected teachers' rights by providing that the Board of Regents must hold hearings before drawing up lists of "subversive" groups.

Heffernan's decision went on: "We are not so naive as to accept as gospel the argument that a teacher who believes in the destruction of our form of government will not affect his students... The result may be accomplished by indirect, subtle insinuations; by what is left unsaid, as well as what is said."

Justice Hearn's December decision was also reversed in March, by the Second Department of the Appellate Division. Ruling only on the suit brought by eight taxpayers, Justice William B. Carswell asserted that there is "no constitutional right to be a public employee," and said that it was within the powers of the legislature to "protect the public service" from those who advocate forceful overthrow of the government.

Evidence Proper

As to the Feinberg Law itself, Judge Carswell noted that the conditions imposed and the classifications made "are reasonable," and said that the state was competent to use "prima facie evidence" in disqualifying teachers.

Groups testing the Law announced that they would appeal these decisions to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The casts are now pending before that Court, and decisions are expected next Fall. Until that time, neither the Board of Regents nor the New York City Board of Education will take any further steps to put the Feinberg Law into practice.

Meanwhile, however, Superintendent Jansen in New York City has proceeded to take action against several teachers and employees in elementary and secondary schools, acting not under the Feinberg Law, but under earlier legislation outlawing "subversives" in public schools.

Trouble at Queens

Although Jansen's actions have not yet touched college or university teachers, several college students have been indirectly affected. Last month, four student's organizations at New York's Queens College invited Mrs. Celia Zitron, one of eight public school teachers suspended by Jansen and the Board of Education, to speak on the campus.

The presidents of the four city colleges then ruled that none of the eight teachers should be permitted to speak on the campus of any city college. The Queens College Faculty Committee made a similar ruling, on the grounds that permitting such speeches would not be consistent with the Board of Education's dismissal of the eight teachers.

In spite of these rulings, the four groups went ahead and held their meeting on May 19, drawing a crowd estimated at 250 persons. On the next day, John J. Theobald, president of Queens College, suspended the four groups--the Student Council, the Queens College Liberals, the Young Progressives, and the Committee for Democracy in Education