American Communications Association v. Douds

Douds, which has never been overturned but is of doubtful value as legal precedent, reflected the Cold War era, when paranoia about Communist infiltration was uppermost in the public consciousness.

The Taft-Hartley Labor-Management Relations Act, which Congress passed in 1947, was intended to reduce the power labor unions gained under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs of the 1930s. Prior to 1937, when Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Court--increasing the number of justices on the Court so that it would reflect his own views, the justices had consistently endorsed a laissez-faire approach to economic issues that favored employers over workers. After 1937, however, the Court switched course, supporting New Deal innovations that provided workers and their unions with more and more statutory rights.

With the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress proposed to shift the balance of power away from unions, while at the same time curbing what many legislators regarded as the increasing influence of the Communist Party on union leadership. The act contained a number of proscriptions, including restrictions on the right of members to select their own representatives, and the requirement that union leaders swear they were not members of the Communist Party. If these requirements were not met, the noncomplying unions ran the risk of losing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) protections against unfair labor practices. Some labor unions regarded such provisions to be violations of their members' First Amendment rights of political freedom and declined to observe them. When the NLRB threatened to hold a representative election in a bargaining unit that was already represented by the American Communications Association of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), the CIO went to court to obtain an injunction to prevent the election from occurring. After the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed its suit, the CIO applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision.

Although the Supreme Court was ostensibly unaffected by the political passions of the day, Douds is evidence that the Court was influenced by the Cold War. The perceived threat to national security posed by alleged Communist infiltration of labor unions prompted the Court to disregard the First Amendment's guarantees of the fundamental political freedoms, the rights of free speech, and free association.

The Court got around the First Amendment by reasoning that the Taft-Hartley provision was intended to protect society against harmful acts--politically motivated strikes--rather than harmful ideas. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Vinson argued:

Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h) [of the Taft-Hartley Act], in other words, does not interfere with speech because Congress fears the consequences of speech; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has determined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations and beliefs.

If nothing else, Douds demonstrates the adaptability of the Constitution's Commerce Clause as a rationale for addressing seemingly unrelated issues. On its face, political affiliation would appear to have no direct bearing on interstate commerce. Retrospectively, many commentators view the Court's argument as disingenuous. But the highly publicized Communist witch hunt that was then being conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy had a powerful impact--apparently affecting even the Supreme Court. As McCarthy's hold on the public consciousness relaxed, however, the need for loyalty pledges dissipated. Although Douds itself was not overruled, the statute that took the place of section 9(h) of Taft-Hartley was specifically struck down in United States v. Brown (1965).