Congress of Industrial Organizations v. McAdory
Decided on June 11, 1945; 325 US 472


I. ISSUES II. CASE SUMMARY III. AMICI CURIAE IV. DECISION V. WIN OR LOSS?
I. ISSUES:

A. Issues Discussed: Labor union regulation, declaratory judgment

B. Legal Question Presented:

Are petitioners' contentions about the constitutionality of certain sections of the Bradford Act and their impact on Petitioners' activities, sufficiently factual for the US Supreme Court to determine whether Petitioners' rights would be affected by the Act?

II. CASE SUMMARY:

A. Background:

"This suit... is a companion case to Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory...

Petitioners brought the present suit in the State Circuit Court against respondents who are county officers charged with the duty of enforcing the Act, praying a declaratory judgment that the Act as a whole and particularly 7 and 16, among others, are unconstitutional under the Federal and State Constitutions, and are invalid because [they are] in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq., and praying that an injunction [be issued].

After a trial upon evidence the Circuit Court adjudged certain sections of the Act, not here in issue, to be invalid in whole or in part. In other respects it held the Act constitutional and valid. It found that the evidence disclosed no effort on the part of respondents to enforce the provisions of the Act declared to be invalid and accordingly denied an injunction. On appeal the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, for the reasons stated in its opinion in the Alabama State Federation of Labor case."

The US Supreme Court dismissed its writ of certiorari.

B. Counsel of Record:
ACLU Side
(Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side
(Respondent/Appellee)
Unavailable Unavailable
C. The Arguments:
ACLU Side
(Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side
(Respondent/Appellee)
Unavailable Unavailable
III. AMICI CURIAE:
ACLU Side
(Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side
(Respondent/Appellee)
Mr. Lee Pressman, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Messrs. John W. Lapsley and James A. Simpson, both of Birmingham, Ala ., and John E. Adams, of Grove Hill, Ala., for respondents.
IV. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION:

"We find no other factual differences calling for comment between the case presented by the record here and that presented in the Alabama State Federation of Labor case. Our decision here is therefore controlled by our decision in that case. The question raised as to the equal protection of the laws is too unsubstantial to merit review. The other issues, as presented by the record now before us, are, for reasons stated at length in our opinion in the Alabama State Federation of Labor case, inappropriate for decision in a declaratory judgment proceeding.

The writ of certiorari is accordingly dismissed."

Justice Vote: 0 Pro vs. 9 Con
(Unanimous Decision for Respondent/Appellee)


  • Stone, H.Con (Wrote majority opinion)
  • Roberts, O. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Black, H. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Reed, S. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Frankfurter, F. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Douglas, W. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Murphy, F. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Jackson, R. Con (Joined majority opinion)
  • Rutledge, W. Con (Joined majority opinion)
V. A WIN OR LOSS FOR THE ACLU?

The ACLU, as amicus curiae in support of Petitioner, urged for a declaratory judgment; the Supreme Court denied it in a 0-9 vote, giving the ACLU an apparent loss.