Gompers v. United States

Last updated
Gompers v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 8–9, 1914
Reargued April 20–21, 1914
Decided May 11, 1914
Full case nameSamuel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison v. United States
Citations233 U.S. 604 ( more )
34 S. Ct. 693; 58 L. Ed. 1115
Case history
PriorIn re Gompers, 40 App. D.C. 293 (D.C. Cir. 1913)
Holding
Contempt of court is a crime to which a statute of limitations applies.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Horace H. Lurton
Charles E. Hughes  · Willis Van Devanter
Joseph R. Lamar  · Mahlon Pitney
Case opinions
MajorityHolmes
DissentVan Devanter
DissentPitney

Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (1914), was a contempt of court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Contents

Background

Before 1932, the courts attempted to control the activities of labor unions by issuing injunctions that forbade strikes and picketing. Around the turn of the century labor unions began increasingly to use boycotts against individual employers to force them to provide improved working conditions and higher wages. The courts attempted to stop the boycotts by using antilabor injunctions.

Samuel Gompers was the first president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), holding the office from 1886 to 1924. Gompers and two other labor leaders were convicted of violating an antiboycott injunction for running a notice in its magazine listing Buck's Stove & Range Company along with other companies under the heading "We Don't Patronize." On May 25, 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on the case Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company . [1] The Court refused to reexamine the validity of the injunction issued by the lower court and rejected Gompers' claim that the First Amendment protected his activities. However, the convictions were reversed on the ground that the contempts were civil but the lower court had treated them as criminal in nature. The aim of civil contempt is remediation while the purpose of criminal contempt is punitive.

Although the Court had dismissed the charges in Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia retained the power to punish contempt, if any had been committed against it. The day after the decision, this court appointed a committee to see if there was reasonable cause to believe that Gompers was guilty of willfully violating an injunction issued by the court on 18 December 1907.

On June 26, 1911, the committee reported that Gompers was guilty of violating the injunction. Rules to show cause were issued that day requiring each of the defendants to show why they should not be adjudged to be in contempt and be punished for it. Gompers pleaded the statute of limitations and not guilty to most of the charges. A trial took place, the statute of limitations was held inapplicable, and Gompers was found guilty and sentenced to prison for 12 months. The court of appeals reduced the sentence to imprisonment for 30 days.

Gompers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the alleged contempt took place more than three years before the proceedings began and was therefore beyond the statute of limitations.

Decision

The Court reversed the decision of the lower court based on its holding that criminal contempt was a crime to which the statute of limitations applies.

Significance

The Court settled whether contempt was actually a crime by the affirmative. It also resolved the issue of a statute of limitations for punishing contempt, settling on a term of three years.

See also

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor.

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alton B. Parker</span> American judge (1852–1926)

Alton Brooks Parker was an American judge. He is best known as the Democrat who lost the presidential election of 1904 to Theodore Roosevelt.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.

United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court laid out the constitutional limitations for the use of contempt powers by courts.

United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court examined whether a trial court acted appropriately when it issued a restraining order to prevent a labor strike organized by coal miners. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, the Court held that a restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting a strike did not violate the Clayton Antitrust Act or the Norris–La Guardia Act, that the trial court was authorized to punish the violation of its orders as criminal contempt, and that fines imposed by the trial court were warranted in the situation.

Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned the peonage laws of Alabama.

In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), was a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court decision handed down concerning Eugene V. Debs and labor unions.

Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911), was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court involving a case of contempt for violating the terms of an injunction restraining labor union leaders from a boycott or from publishing any statement that there was or had been a boycott.

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 effectively outlawed the secondary boycott as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, despite union arguments that their actions affected only intrastate commerce. It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Mitchell (United Mine Workers)</span> United States labor leader (1870–1919)

John Mitchell was a United States labor leader and president of the United Mine Workers of America from 1898 to 1908.

History of labor law in the United States refers to the development of United States labor law, or legal relations between workers, their employers and trade unions in the United States of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Waite Court</span>

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

Criminal syndicalism has been defined as a doctrine of criminal acts for political, industrial, and social change. These criminal acts include advocation of crime, sabotage, violence, and other unlawful methods of terrorism. Criminal syndicalism laws were enacted to oppose economic radicalism.

References