Petitioners
Samuel Gompers, et al.
Respondent
Buck's Stove & Range Company
Petitioners' Claim
That even though they violated the terms of an injunction, the actions of Gompers and others in the American Federation of Labor were protected under theFirst Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Alton B. Parker, Jackson H. Ralston
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
J. J. Darlington, Daniel Davenport
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, John Marshall Harlan I, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar (writing for the Court), Horace Harmon Lurton,Joseph McKenna, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 May 1911
Decision
The Court would not consider the free speech argument, but reversed two lowercourts' findings of criminal contempt on a technicality.
Significance
The Supreme Court did not analyze the constitutional question raised under the First Amendment, concluding that the injunction did not, by its terms, restrict or restrain any forms of publication (or speech). Therefore, there was no question on appeal as to an "abridgment" of free speech. Instead, the Courtconsidered whether a lower court had the power to issue an anti-boycott injunction, even if the boycott itself was in the form of written or spoken wordsor statements. The Court held that such words or statements were not protected speech under the First Amendment, but were unified "verbal acts" (under analleged conspiracy to act together to harm Buck's company). As such, they were subject to injunctive restraint, if the boycott would result in property being irreparably damaged or commerce being illegally restrained.
Historical Backdrop
During the 1800s, many laborers and workers organized and formed unions to strengthen their bargaining power to negotiate for better working conditions and wages. Courts were reluctant to restrict or restrain these efforts, in consideration of First Amendment protections of freedom of speech (e.g., the right to speak out against unfair conditions) and freedom of association (e.g., the right to join with others to speak out against unfair conditions). However, courts also needed to weigh or balance conflicting individual freedoms, particularly where certain freedoms of expression might result in harm or damageto the property rights of others.
With the rise in interstate commerce, individual labor unions began to form voluntary associations with others under the umbrella organization of the American Federation of Labor (AF of L, later AFL). This enhancement of bargainingpower for individual laborers was intimidating to manufacturers and producers, who formed their own professional affiliations and associations, in a reciprocal effort to maintain equal bargaining power.
Testing the Waters
The AFL published its own newspaper, the American Federationist, of which Samuel Gompers was editor (as well as president of the AFL). John Mitchell was AFL vice president and Frank Morrison was manager of circulation for the paper, which had a broad readership of both the public and federation members. Following a labor dispute with Buck's Stove & Range Company over hours of work, workers began a boycott, and the Federationist published the name of Buck's company on "Unfair" and "We Don't Patronize" blacklists.
Buck's filed an action in the trial court for the District of Columbia, alleging, among other things, that Gompers and others had entered into an illegalboycott to restrain Buck's business and had threatened other merchants not todeal with Buck's, causing irreparable damage to its business. After lengthyarguments, the trial court agreed with Buck's and issued a lengthy temporaryinjunction, prohibiting Gompers and the others from engaging in any boycott ". . . for the purpose of, or tending to, any injury to or interference withthe complainant's business." Following additional taking of evidence and hearing arguments, the trial court made the injunction permanent on 23 March 1908. The defendants in that action (Gompers, Mitchell, Morrison, and others) appealed the matter. However, before any appellate decision was rendered, Buck'sfiled another petition in equity with the trial court, asking the court to find the defendants in the original action guilty of violating the terms of the injunction and to punish them for contempt. The petition cited several examples of speech and editorials, published subsequent to the court's earlier decision, which Buck's believed to be in violation of the anti-boycott injunction. Following a "show cause" order to the defendants, the trial court again agreed with Buck's and found that Gompers, Mitchell, and Morrison had disobeyed the terms of the injunction, and further found them guilty of contempt, sentencing them to several months imprisonment. The defendants again appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court'sdecision, but made some changes to the language of the injunction. From this,both sides appealed to the Supreme Court. However, again prior to decision,both sides resolved many issues between them, and only Gompers's appeal became part of the Supreme Court's decision. Essentially, the petitioners argued that: (1) they had not been in contempt of the trial court's order; (2) the statements they made or published were not violative of the injunction; and (3)arguendo, even if it appeared that their statements violated the injunction, the trial court could not abridge their freedom of speech or of the press under the First Amendment; therefore, the injunction was invalid and there could be no contempt.
The Court's Analysis
Writing the opinion for the majority, Justice Lamar first addressed the constitutional issue posed by the petitioners, stating that the terms of the injunction did not restrain speech or press, as they had argued. Instead, he reasoned, the real issue posed was whether a lower court in equity had the power to impose an injunction on the continuance of a boycott, which, "by words andsignals, printed or spoken, caused or threatened irreparable damage." He referred to several federal laws (including the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) and priorSupreme Court cases which clearly upheld courts' powers to enjoin a boycottwhere interstate commerce was restrained or property was irreparably damaged.He again reasoned that if the restraint of trade could be enjoined, but themeans through which the restraint was accomplished could not be enjoined, itwould render all the laws "impotent."
Lamar then briefly discussed the difference between an individual's right ofspeech and association versus the rights of a "multitude of members" who haveacquired vast power by uniting, such as in a labor organization. In those circumstances, Lamar explained, " . . . it is the duty of government to protectthe one against the many, as well as the many against the one." Accordingly,a court's protective and restraining powers extended, "to every device whereby property is irreparably damaged or commerce is illegally restrained."
The opinion further distinguished between an individual's words or signals, and those of an unlawful conspiracy among persons to act together against a business. Such a conspiracy, Lamar noted, " . . . gives the words `Unfair,' `WeDon't Patronize,' or similar expressions, a force not inhering in the wordsthemselves, and therefore exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have. Under such circumstances they become what have beencalled `verbal acts,' and as much subject to injunction as the use of any other force whereby property is unlawfully damaged." Lamar then stated that when the facts in a case warranted it, a court with proper jurisdiction over theparties and the subject matter indeed had the power to grant an injunction.
The remainder of the opinion focused on the appropriateness of the remedy. After a lengthy discussion of the differences between civil and criminal contempt, Lamar concluded that, not only did the lower courts' determination (thatthis case was one of criminal contempt) require reversal, but also that Buck's was not entitled to "any compensation or relief" because the offending contempt was against the court, not Buck's. Therefore, the contempt proceedings instituted by Buck's were ordered dismissed, but the opinion left open the right of the original trial court to institute its own contempt proceedings against Gompers, et al. for any contempt committed against it.
Impact
Again, the issue here was not the right of free speech, but rather, whether one could use the protections of free speech to accomplish an otherwise illegal act, objective, or purpose. This case has been relied on as authoritative in dozens of subsequent cases seeking to quash boycotts. Most forms of boycotting remain illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. However, non-violent, politically-motivated economic boycotts which seek to secure constitutional rights are generally protected. Boycotts are to be distinguished from "pickets,"wherein employees and workers may peacefully protest at their place of employment, and make known to the public their grievances against their employer.
Related Cases
Unions
The first efforts to organize employees into unions were met with fierce resistance by employers. The U.S. legal system played a part in the resistance, indicting boot and shoemakers in Commonwealth v. Pullis (1806) for conspiring to raise their wages. The first national labor federation to remain active for more than a few years was the Noble Order of the Knights of Labor. It was established in 1869 and had set as goals the eight-hour workday, equalpay for equal work, and the abolition of child labor. The Knights of Labor grew to 700,000 members by 1886, but went into decline that year with a seriesof failed strikes. By 1900 it had disappeared.
Unions flourished and were at their strongest following World War II. By 1955, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) joined forces to become AFL-CIO. It is now one of the largest unions in this country with a membership of 15 million.
Over 70 unions fall under the protective umbrella of AFL-CIO, which calls itself the "voice of working American men and women."
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 6. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: The West Group, 1998.
Samuel Gompers, et al.
Respondent
Buck's Stove & Range Company
Petitioners' Claim
That even though they violated the terms of an injunction, the actions of Gompers and others in the American Federation of Labor were protected under theFirst Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Alton B. Parker, Jackson H. Ralston
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
J. J. Darlington, Daniel Davenport
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, John Marshall Harlan I, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar (writing for the Court), Horace Harmon Lurton,Joseph McKenna, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 May 1911
Decision
The Court would not consider the free speech argument, but reversed two lowercourts' findings of criminal contempt on a technicality.
Significance
The Supreme Court did not analyze the constitutional question raised under the First Amendment, concluding that the injunction did not, by its terms, restrict or restrain any forms of publication (or speech). Therefore, there was no question on appeal as to an "abridgment" of free speech. Instead, the Courtconsidered whether a lower court had the power to issue an anti-boycott injunction, even if the boycott itself was in the form of written or spoken wordsor statements. The Court held that such words or statements were not protected speech under the First Amendment, but were unified "verbal acts" (under analleged conspiracy to act together to harm Buck's company). As such, they were subject to injunctive restraint, if the boycott would result in property being irreparably damaged or commerce being illegally restrained.
Historical Backdrop
During the 1800s, many laborers and workers organized and formed unions to strengthen their bargaining power to negotiate for better working conditions and wages. Courts were reluctant to restrict or restrain these efforts, in consideration of First Amendment protections of freedom of speech (e.g., the right to speak out against unfair conditions) and freedom of association (e.g., the right to join with others to speak out against unfair conditions). However, courts also needed to weigh or balance conflicting individual freedoms, particularly where certain freedoms of expression might result in harm or damageto the property rights of others.
With the rise in interstate commerce, individual labor unions began to form voluntary associations with others under the umbrella organization of the American Federation of Labor (AF of L, later AFL). This enhancement of bargainingpower for individual laborers was intimidating to manufacturers and producers, who formed their own professional affiliations and associations, in a reciprocal effort to maintain equal bargaining power.
Testing the Waters
The AFL published its own newspaper, the American Federationist, of which Samuel Gompers was editor (as well as president of the AFL). John Mitchell was AFL vice president and Frank Morrison was manager of circulation for the paper, which had a broad readership of both the public and federation members. Following a labor dispute with Buck's Stove & Range Company over hours of work, workers began a boycott, and the Federationist published the name of Buck's company on "Unfair" and "We Don't Patronize" blacklists.
Buck's filed an action in the trial court for the District of Columbia, alleging, among other things, that Gompers and others had entered into an illegalboycott to restrain Buck's business and had threatened other merchants not todeal with Buck's, causing irreparable damage to its business. After lengthyarguments, the trial court agreed with Buck's and issued a lengthy temporaryinjunction, prohibiting Gompers and the others from engaging in any boycott ". . . for the purpose of, or tending to, any injury to or interference withthe complainant's business." Following additional taking of evidence and hearing arguments, the trial court made the injunction permanent on 23 March 1908. The defendants in that action (Gompers, Mitchell, Morrison, and others) appealed the matter. However, before any appellate decision was rendered, Buck'sfiled another petition in equity with the trial court, asking the court to find the defendants in the original action guilty of violating the terms of the injunction and to punish them for contempt. The petition cited several examples of speech and editorials, published subsequent to the court's earlier decision, which Buck's believed to be in violation of the anti-boycott injunction. Following a "show cause" order to the defendants, the trial court again agreed with Buck's and found that Gompers, Mitchell, and Morrison had disobeyed the terms of the injunction, and further found them guilty of contempt, sentencing them to several months imprisonment. The defendants again appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court'sdecision, but made some changes to the language of the injunction. From this,both sides appealed to the Supreme Court. However, again prior to decision,both sides resolved many issues between them, and only Gompers's appeal became part of the Supreme Court's decision. Essentially, the petitioners argued that: (1) they had not been in contempt of the trial court's order; (2) the statements they made or published were not violative of the injunction; and (3)arguendo, even if it appeared that their statements violated the injunction, the trial court could not abridge their freedom of speech or of the press under the First Amendment; therefore, the injunction was invalid and there could be no contempt.
The Court's Analysis
Writing the opinion for the majority, Justice Lamar first addressed the constitutional issue posed by the petitioners, stating that the terms of the injunction did not restrain speech or press, as they had argued. Instead, he reasoned, the real issue posed was whether a lower court in equity had the power to impose an injunction on the continuance of a boycott, which, "by words andsignals, printed or spoken, caused or threatened irreparable damage." He referred to several federal laws (including the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) and priorSupreme Court cases which clearly upheld courts' powers to enjoin a boycottwhere interstate commerce was restrained or property was irreparably damaged.He again reasoned that if the restraint of trade could be enjoined, but themeans through which the restraint was accomplished could not be enjoined, itwould render all the laws "impotent."
Lamar then briefly discussed the difference between an individual's right ofspeech and association versus the rights of a "multitude of members" who haveacquired vast power by uniting, such as in a labor organization. In those circumstances, Lamar explained, " . . . it is the duty of government to protectthe one against the many, as well as the many against the one." Accordingly,a court's protective and restraining powers extended, "to every device whereby property is irreparably damaged or commerce is illegally restrained."
The opinion further distinguished between an individual's words or signals, and those of an unlawful conspiracy among persons to act together against a business. Such a conspiracy, Lamar noted, " . . . gives the words `Unfair,' `WeDon't Patronize,' or similar expressions, a force not inhering in the wordsthemselves, and therefore exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have. Under such circumstances they become what have beencalled `verbal acts,' and as much subject to injunction as the use of any other force whereby property is unlawfully damaged." Lamar then stated that when the facts in a case warranted it, a court with proper jurisdiction over theparties and the subject matter indeed had the power to grant an injunction.
The remainder of the opinion focused on the appropriateness of the remedy. After a lengthy discussion of the differences between civil and criminal contempt, Lamar concluded that, not only did the lower courts' determination (thatthis case was one of criminal contempt) require reversal, but also that Buck's was not entitled to "any compensation or relief" because the offending contempt was against the court, not Buck's. Therefore, the contempt proceedings instituted by Buck's were ordered dismissed, but the opinion left open the right of the original trial court to institute its own contempt proceedings against Gompers, et al. for any contempt committed against it.
Impact
Again, the issue here was not the right of free speech, but rather, whether one could use the protections of free speech to accomplish an otherwise illegal act, objective, or purpose. This case has been relied on as authoritative in dozens of subsequent cases seeking to quash boycotts. Most forms of boycotting remain illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. However, non-violent, politically-motivated economic boycotts which seek to secure constitutional rights are generally protected. Boycotts are to be distinguished from "pickets,"wherein employees and workers may peacefully protest at their place of employment, and make known to the public their grievances against their employer.
Related Cases
- Ex Parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1882).
- Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Company, 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994).
- Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 513 U.S. 753 (1994).
Unions
The first efforts to organize employees into unions were met with fierce resistance by employers. The U.S. legal system played a part in the resistance, indicting boot and shoemakers in Commonwealth v. Pullis (1806) for conspiring to raise their wages. The first national labor federation to remain active for more than a few years was the Noble Order of the Knights of Labor. It was established in 1869 and had set as goals the eight-hour workday, equalpay for equal work, and the abolition of child labor. The Knights of Labor grew to 700,000 members by 1886, but went into decline that year with a seriesof failed strikes. By 1900 it had disappeared.
Unions flourished and were at their strongest following World War II. By 1955, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) joined forces to become AFL-CIO. It is now one of the largest unions in this country with a membership of 15 million.
Over 70 unions fall under the protective umbrella of AFL-CIO, which calls itself the "voice of working American men and women."
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 6. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: The West Group, 1998.
Further Readings
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of theUnited States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London, England: Oxford UniversityPress, 1859.
- Wade, Edwin L. Constitution 2000. Chicago, IL: Let's Talk Sense Publishing Company, 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…