Current Codified Provisions (50 U.S.C. §§ 841–844)These sections have not been repealed:§ 841 (Findings and declarations of fact): This is a congressional declaration that the Communist Party of the United States is an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the government, an authoritarian dictatorship, etc., and concludes that it "should be outlawed." It has no direct enforcement power but serves as a statement of policy/purpose.
uscode.house.gov
§ 842 (Proscription of Communist Party, its successors, and subsidiary organizations): Declares that the Communist Party (or successors aiming to overthrow governments by force and violence) is not entitled to the rights, privileges, and immunities of legal bodies under U.S. or state law. Any prior rights granted are terminated. It includes a proviso that it does not amend the Internal Security Act of 1950. This is the core "outlawing" language, primarily affecting the Party's ability to act as a legal entity (e.g., contracts, suing/be sued, bank accounts, ballots in some interpretations).
uscode.house.gov
§ 843: Applies provisions/penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (as amended) to knowing members of the Communist Party or similar organizations aiming to overthrow the government by force/violence, treating them as members of a "Communist-action" organization. Defines "Communist Party."
uscode.house.gov
§ 844: Provides a non-exhaustive list of evidentiary factors (e.g., financial contributions, following orders, distributing propaganda, participating in activities) that a jury may consider (under court instructions) to determine membership, participation, or knowledge of purpose.
uscode.house.gov
Enforceability TodayTheoretical availability: The findings (§841), proscription (§842), and evidentiary rules (§844) are still law. In theory, they could be invoked (e.g., to challenge the legal status of the Party or related groups in specific contexts like ballots, contracts, or organizational rights), and §843 could attempt to trigger remaining Internal Security Act penalties. Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has noted it could potentially be applied against the Party or qualifying organizations.