Three House Republicans—Clay Fuller, Diana Harshbarger, and Keith Self—have introduced H.R. 10501, which would amend the Communist Control Act of 1954 to name the Democratic Socialists of America as an organization not entitled to "any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies." The bill's practical effect is uncertain, since the law it modifies has been largely repealed and its remaining provisions have rarely been interpreted. But the intent is clearly to deny the DSA ordinary legal protections based on its political views.
That intent runs directly into settled First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has held that governments cannot punish or exclude groups merely for advocating abstract doctrines, including violent overthrow of the government. Under the Brandenburg test, only advocacy "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" can be suppressed. The Court applied this principle not just to criminal laws but to eligibility for public employment, tax exemptions, and other regulatory benefits. A blanket exclusion of the DSA from legal status would almost certainly fail that standard.
The bill's supporters note that the DSA wants to "rewrite our Constitution and fundamentally restructure the government." But peaceful advocacy for constitutional change is protected speech—the U.S. Constitution itself replaced the Articles of Confederation through a peaceful rewrite. Even during the Cold War, courts upheld restrictions on the Communist Party only because of its specific aim of establishing a Soviet-aligned dictatorship, and later decisions narrowed that rationale. The author of the source article, who says he dislikes the DSA's policies, concludes that using the law to suppress its political participation is incompatible with the First Amendment and basic democratic principles.