Loewe v. Lawlor

Last updated
Loewe v. Lawlor
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4–5, 1907
Decided February 3, 1908
Full case nameDeitrich Loewe et al. v. Martin Lawlor et al.
Citations208 U.S. 274 ( more )
28 S. Ct. 301; 52 L. Ed. 488; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1769
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding
The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the states, or restricts the liberty of a trader to engage in business.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Edward D. White  · Rufus W. Peckham
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · William H. Moody
Case opinion
MajorityFuller, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act

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. [1] 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. [2] It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union. [3]

Contents

Facts

In 1901, D. E. Loewe & Company, a fur hat manufacturer, declared itself an open shop. [4] It was the third open shop ever established in Danbury, Connecticut, the center of the pelt industry since 1780 [4] (see North American fur trade). Loewe's declaration sparked a strike and a boycott by the United Hatters of North America (UHU), which had organized 70 out of 82 firms in the hat manufacturing industry. [5] The nationwide boycott was assisted by the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and was successful in persuading retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from or do business with Loewe. [5] The goal of the operation was for UHU to gain union recognition as the bargaining agent for employees at Loewe & Co. [5]

Loewe & Co. sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that UHU's boycott interfered with Loewe's ability to engage in the interstate commerce of selling hats. [5] The act had been adopted in 1890, with the primary purpose to control business monopolies. [6] The appellee in the case was Martin Lawlor, the business agent for the UHU, but the list of defendants included 240 union members. [7]

The case was handled in the first instance by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which dismissed the suit on the grounds that the alleged actions fell outside the scope of the Sherman Act. Loewe & Co. appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.

Judgment

In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the UHU was found to have been acting in restraint of interstate commerce and to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Fuller began the opinion by recounting the relevant provisions of the Sherman Act. The first, second, and seventh section of the act can be concisely described as follows:

1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is illegal.
2. Every person who monopolizes, or attempts to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is in violation of the statute.
3. Any person who is injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared illegal by the act may sue in federal court in the district of the defendant and recover three fold damages.

Fuller concluded that the actions of the union did constitute unlawful combination of the type described in the act: "In our opinion, the combination described in the declaration is a combination 'in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States,' in the sense in which those words are used in the act, and the action can be maintained accordingly."

The union had raised a number of objections to the application of the act to its activities, all of which were found to be untenable by the Court. While the union had not interfered with the transportation of hats originating with Loewe & Co., a national boycott conceived on the initiative of the union that comprised vendees in other states was a violation of interstate commerce as proscribed by the statute:

If the purposes of the combination were, as alleged, to prevent any interstate transportation at all, the fact that the means operated at one end before physical transportation commenced, and at the other end after the physical transportation ended, was immaterial. And that conclusion rests on many judgments of this court, to the effect that the act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the States, or restricts, in that regard, the liberty of a trader to engage in business.

The fact that the union was not itself engaged in interstate commerce was irrelevant since the act did not distinguish between the types of associations involved but simply forbade every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade. Fuller underscored that no exemption had been made for organizations of laborers or farmers, despite lobbying to include such language in the statute:

The records of Congress show that several efforts were made to exempt, by legislation, organizations of farmers and laborers from the operation of the act, and that all these efforts failed, so that the act remained as we have it before us.

Consequently, while the boycott and strike action had originated in a single state, the combination efforts had to be viewed in aggregation:

(...) [T]he acts must be considered as a whole, and the plan is open to condemnation notwithstanding a negligible amount of intrastate business might be affected in carrying it out.

The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Significance

Verdict for the plaintiffs in the Loewe v. Lawlor case Verdict for the plaintiffs in the case of Loewe v. Lawlor - NARA - 278249.tif
Verdict for the plaintiffs in the Loewe v. Lawlor case

In 1909, a new trial was held in the District Court to determine the outcome of the case. The presiding judge directed the jury to find for Loewe & Co., in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The jury returned with a verdict of $74,000 in damages, which was tripled, under the Sherman Act, to $222,000. [8] The union won on appeal but then lost on retrial in 1912. [9] The case reached the Supreme Court in 1914, and in Lawlor v. Loewe (1915), the Court again held the union liable for damages. In 1917, the case was settled for slightly over $234,000 (approximately $3.9 million in 2009 currency) of which the AFL was able to obtain $216,000 in voluntary contributions from union members. [10]

The ruling deprived labor unions of an important and effective union tactic, and the decision to hold individual union members personally liable for damages had an adverse impact on union organizing efforts. [5] That led the AFL to initiate an aggressive campaign to convince Congress to address labor concerns about the Sherman Act in the reform of antitrust laws. [5] The push culminated with the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which provided that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce." Section 20 of the act further stated that no injunctions should be granted by federal courts in labor disputes "unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or to a property right." The provisions, however, were narrowly interpreted by the Supreme Court, which ruled, in Duplex Printing Press Company v. Deering (1921), that the exemptions in the Clayton Act did not protect secondary boycotts from judicial control.

Prosecution of labor under antitrust laws would continue until the enactment of the Norris–La Guardia Act in 1932, which included express exemptions of organized labor from antitrust injunctions. The exemptions were upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Hutcheson (1941), which stated that the act should be read broadly to provide a total antitrust exemption for labor unions, "so long as [the] union acts in its self-interest and does not combine with non-labor groups." The majority opinion in Hutcheson was written by Felix Frankfurter, who, before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, had served as one of the drafters of the Norris-La Guardia Act. [11]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Carter, Saalim A. Labor Unions and Antitrust Legislation: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint from 1890-1941. Penn State University, 2006. p. 28.
  3. ↑ Carter, p. 30.
  4. 1 2 Federal Writers' Project (1938). Connecticut: A Guide to Its Roads, Lore and People . Reprint: US History Publishers. ISBN   1-60354-007-5. pp. 132-133.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 William H. Holley and Kenneth M. Jennings. The Labor Relations Process. South-Western, Division of Thomson Learning, 2008. p. 78.
  6. ↑ Holley, p. 106.
  7. ↑ Danbury Museum & Historical Society, Danbury. Arcadia Publishing, 2001. p. 79.
  8. ↑ Ernst, Daniel R. Lawyers against labor: from individual rights to corporate liberalism. University of Illinois Press, 1995. p. 151.
  9. ↑ Tomlins, Christopher. The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. p. 162.
  10. ↑ Gould, William B. A Primer on American Labor Law. MIT Press, 2004. p. 14.
  11. ↑ Dubofsky, Melvyn. The State and Labor in Modern America. University of North Carolina Press, 1994. p. 165.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914</span> US federal law

The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency. That regime started with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers. The Clayton Act specified particular prohibited conduct, the three-level enforcement scheme, the exemptions, and the remedial measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), was a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court which declared that bans on "yellow-dog" contracts 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.

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1910), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The Court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The 79th Congress passed the McCarran–Ferguson Act in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, 348 U.S. 236 (1955), often referred to as International Boxing Club or just International Boxing, was an antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. By a 7–2 margin, the justices ruled that the exemption it had previously upheld for Major League Baseball was peculiar and unique to that sport and that it did not apply to boxing. Since it met the definition of interstate commerce, the government could therefore proceed with a trial to prove IBCNY and the other defendants had conspired to monopolize the market for championship boxing in the United States.

Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy". The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the combination in this case is one in restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize the business of tobacco in interstate commerce within the prohibitions of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. As a result, the American Tobacco Company was split into four competitors.

Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which examined the labor provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act and reaffirmed the prior ruling in Loewe v. Lawlor that a secondary boycott was an illegal restraint on trade. The decision authorized courts to issue injunctions to block this practice, and any other tactics used by labor unions that were deemed unlawful restraints on trade.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It stated that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Hatters of North America</span> Former trade union of the United States

The United Hatters of North America (UHU) was a labor union representing hat makers, headquartered in the United States. The UHU was founded and received a charter in the American Federation of Labor in 1896 through a merger of the International Trade Association of Hat Finishers of America and the National Hat Makers' Association of the United States. One of its co-founders was John A. Moffitt, who served consecutively as UHU vice president, president, and editor of its official journal from 1896 to 1911.

United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), is the first case in which the United States Supreme Court held it a violation of the antitrust laws to refuse to a competitor access to a facility necessary for entering or remaining in the market. In this case a combination of firms was carrying out the restrictive practice, rather than a single firm, which made the conduct susceptible to challenge under section 1 of the Sherman Act rather than under the heightened standard of section 2 of that act. Even so, the case was brought under both sections.

<i>United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.</i>

United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. , 225 F. 800, was a civil antitrust prosecution overlapping to some extent with the issues in the decision in the Supreme Court's Motion Picture Patents case. After the trial court found that the defendants violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by establishing control over "trade in films, cameras, projecting machines, and other accessories of the motion picture business," by their patent licensing practices and other conduct, they appealed to the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court's 1917 decision in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co., however, the parties dismissed the appeal by stipulation in 1918 that the decision had made the defendants' appeal futile.

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court often cited as an example of a monopolization violation being based on unilateral denial of access to an essential facility, although it in fact involved concerted action. When the Lorain Journal's monopoly over advertising in the Lorain, Ohio area was threatened by the establishment of a competing radio station, the Journal's publisher refused to accept advertising from those who advertised over the radio station and required them to advertise only in the Journal. The purpose of the publisher was to eliminate the competition of the radio station. The Supreme Court held that the publisher had attempted to monopolize trade and commerce, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and was properly enjoined from continuing the conduct.

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court involving the right to make petitions to the government. The right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This case involved an accusation that one group of companies was using state and federal regulatory actions to eliminate competitors. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to petition is integral to the legal system but using lawful means to achieve unlawful restraint of trade is not protected.

Martin Lawlor was an Irish-born American labor union leader.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.