Mark de Wolfe Howe '28, professor of Law, said yesterday that the Supreme Court ruling which invalidates anti-subversion laws on the state level may increase the fairness of investigations and will definitely clear defendants such as former M.I.T. professor Dirk J. Struik.

The high court's recent decision is "unclear," however, Howe maintained, since it does not specify whether all state action concerning subversion is invalid. Congress may also give states future permission to pass such laws, he added.

A six to three majority ruled that "Congress had treated seditious conduct to the exclusion of parallel state legislation."

The case of Struik, a former professor of Physics at M.I.T., is still pending before the Middlesex County Court. He was charged in 1951 under Massachusetts law with "conspiring to overthrow the governments of Massachusetts and the United States."

The charges against Struik are now invalid, according to Howe, despite any future action by Congress permitting state laws on subversion.

Randall Explains Scope

A member of the Massachusetts Commission on Communism, Representative William I. Randall, said that the commission was "up in the air" as to the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision.

The three state laws affected by the ruling, according to Randall, are an anti-subversion act, the abolition of the Communist Party in the state, and a prohibition on renting lecture halls to Communists.

The author of several anti-subversive measures, Representative Charles Ianello, claimed that federal prosecutions have been inadequate in convicting Communists. "Federal courts cannot make convictions without positive evidence that the defendant has tried to overthrow the government." He added that under state laws "easier convictions could be obtained."