Adair v United States
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Adair v. United States'', 208 U.S. 161 (1908), was a
US labor law United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "org ...
case of the
United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
which declared that bans on " yellow-dog" contracts (that forbade workers from joining labor unions) were unconstitutional. The decision reaffirmed the doctrine of freedom of contract which was first recognized by the Court in '' Allgeyer v. Louisiana'' (1897). For this reason, ''Adair'' is often seen as defining what has come to be known as the ''Lochner'' era, a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business. In earlier cases, the Court had struck down state legislation limiting the freedom of contract by using the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which only applied to the states. In ''Adair'' the doctrine was expanded to include federal legislation by way of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.


Facts

The Erdman Act of 1898, section 10, passed by
Congress A congress is a formal meeting of the representatives of different countries, constituent states, organizations, trade unions, political parties, or other groups. The term originated in Late Middle English to denote an encounter (meeting of ...
to prevent unrest in the railroad labor industry, prohibited railroad companies engaged in
interstate commerce The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and amo ...
from demanding that a worker not join a union as a condition for employment. The law provided for voluntary arbitration of disputes between the interstate railroads and their workers organized into labor unions. It applied to individuals who worked on moving trains which transported freight and passengers between states. Workers who maintained railroad cars, and station clerks, did not come under the statute's jurisdiction. In 1906, William Adair, a master mechanic who supervised employees at the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, fired O. B. Coppage for belonging to labor union called the Order of Locomotive Fireman. Adair's actions were in direct violation of Section 10 of the Erdman Act which made it illegal for employers to "threaten any employee with loss of employment" or to "unjustly discriminate against an employee because of his membership in ... a labor corporation, organization or association."Carter, Saalim A
''Labor Unions and Antitrust Legislation: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint from 1890-1941''
Penn State University, 2006. p. 30.
Adair was indicted in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (in case citations, E.D. Ky.) is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises approximately the Eastern half of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The United States Co ...
, which upheld the law as constitutional. In a subsequent trial, Adair was found guilty of violating the act and ordered to pay a $100 fine. Adair appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court.


Judgment

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that Section 10 of the Erdman act was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, written by
Justice Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspective ...
John M. Harlan, the question to be decided was described as such: In answering this question, Harlan first examined whether Section 10 of the act on which the indictment against Adair was based "is repugnant to the Fifth Amendment." Harlan found that the due process clause of the Amendment guarded against "an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as the right of property", and that " ch liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor". Harlan further cited the landmark decision in '' Lochner v. New York'' (1905) in which the Court had struck down state regulation which was found to infringe on the laborers' "liberty of contract". In reference to the prerogatives of both parties in the termination of a labor contract, Harlan wrote: Having found that the Fifth Amendment barred against limiting the right of an employer to fire an employee due to membership in a labor union, Harlan concluded that Congress could not criminalize such action. Furthermore, it had been argued by the government in defending the statute that Section 10 was a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the
Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and amon ...
. In the second part of the opinion, Harlan examined this claim, at first acknowledging that Congress had "a large discretion in the selection or choice of the means to be employed in the regulation of interstate commerce". But this discretion was dependent on the regulation: Harlan rejected that the provision had any such connection, asking rhetorically: Harlan concluded that Congress' control over interstate commerce did not extend to membership in labor unions: Justices Joseph McKenna and Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. filed separate dissents.


McKenna's dissent

In his dissent, McKenna stressed the importance of the purpose of Congress' regulation, viz. its remedial efforts to counter the recurring clashes between workers and management in the railroad industry: By the same token, McKenna argued that the invalidation of Section 10 would hamper Congress' intentions, as a scheme devised for effective arbitration would thus come to lack an integral component. In reference to the right of an employer to fire an employee at will, which would unravel Congress' arbitration scheme, McKenna asked: In apparent admonition of the reasoning in the majority opinion, McKenna cautioned: "Liberty is an attractive theme, but the liberty which is exercised in sheer antipathy does not plead strongly for recognition." McKenna found that the legislation was within the boundaries of Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce, and, in regard to the Fifth Amendment, a line was to be drawn between private and public business: "We are dealing with rights exercised in a quasi-public business, and therefore subject to control in the interest of the public."


Holmes' dissent

Holmes, in a succinct dissent, began by saying that he too thought that the act was constitutional, and that "but for the decision of my brethren, I should have felt pretty clear about it." In Holmes' view, Section 10 presented "in substance, a very limited interference with the liberty of contract, no more." Holmes also criticized past decisions of the Court in this regard, stating that "I confess that I think that the right to make contracts at will that has been derived from the word liberty in the amendments has been stretched to its extreme by the decisions". Like McKenna, Holmes contended that Congress' interest in preventing strikes and make effective its scheme of arbitration was sufficient justification for the act, while also adding, in conclusion:


Significance

The Court followed up the decision in ''Adair'' with '' Coppage v. Kansas'' (1915), which denied to states as well the power to ban yellow-dog contracts. In 1932, yellow-dog contracts were
outlawed An outlaw, in its original and legal meaning, is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, all legal protection was withdrawn from the criminal, so that anyone was legally empowered to persecute or kill them ...
in the United States under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. David P. Currie has remarked that the Court's decision in ''Adair'' is difficult to square with two of its other decisions that same year: '' Damselle Howard v. Illinois Central Railroad Company'' (1907), in which the Court held that it was within Congress' power to abrogate the fellow-servant rule (which absolves an employer of liability for injury to a worker resulting from the negligence of a co-worker) for railway employees injured in interstate commerce; and ''
Loewe v. Lawlor ''Loewe v. Lawlor'', 208 U.S. 274 (1908), also referred to as the Danbury Hatters' Case, is a United States Supreme Court case in United States labor law concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectivel ...
'' (1908), in which it held that Congress could prevent union members from boycotting goods shipped from one state to another.Currie, David P. ''The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986''. University of Chicago Press, 1990. p. 27.


See also

*
US labor law United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "org ...
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 208 This is a list of cases reported in volume 208 of ''United States Reports'', decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 208 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by ...


Notes


External links

* * {{US5thAmendment, dueprocess History of labor relations in the United States United States substantive due process case law 1908 in United States case law 1908 in the United States United States labor case law Louisville and Nashville Railroad United States contract case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court United States Supreme Court cases