368:
31:
716:
496:
401:, 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
341:
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
331:
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
327:
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
336:
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
382:
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
307:, 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:
392:
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. That led the AFL to initiate an aggressive campaign to convince
389:(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.
337:
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.
287:
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
273:(AFL) and was successful in persuading retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from or do business with Loewe. The goal of the operation was for UHU to gain union recognition as the bargaining agent for employees at Loewe & Co.
316:
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
346:
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
322:
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
280:, alleging that UHU's boycott interfered with Loewe's ability to engage in the interstate commerce of selling hats. The act had been adopted in 1890, with the primary purpose to control business monopolies. The appellee in the case was
420:(1941), which stated that the act should be read broadly to provide a total antitrust exemption for labor unions, "so long as union acts in its self-interest and does not combine with non-labor groups." The majority opinion in
241:, 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.
110:
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
502:
355:(...) 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.
311:
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.
806:
416:
731:
483:
289:
72:
385:
458:
414:
in 1932, which included express exemptions of organized labor from antitrust injunctions. The exemptions were upheld by the
Supreme Court in
351:
Consequently, while the boycott and strike action had originated in a single state, the combination efforts had to be viewed in aggregation:
796:
801:
816:
403:
821:
383:
Act, to $ 222,000. The union won on appeal but then lost on retrial in 1912. The case reached the
Supreme Court in 1914, and in
720:
826:
811:
397:
to address labor concerns about the
Sherman Act in the reform of antitrust laws. The push culminated with the passage of the
367:
269:(UHU), which had organized 70 out of 82 firms in the hat manufacturing industry. The nationwide boycott was assisted by the
442:
301:
35:
556:
332:
union that comprised vendees in other states was a violation of interstate commerce as proscribed by the statute:
516:
266:
451:
428:, who, before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, had served as one of the drafters of the Norris-La Guardia Act.
841:
398:
233:
concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectively outlawed the
778:
270:
542:
407:(1921), that the exemptions in the Clayton Act did not protect secondary boycotts from judicial control.
226:
411:
166:
760:
258:
437:
230:
769:
342:
organizations of laborers or farmers, despite lobbying to include such language in the statute:
518:
Labor Unions and
Antitrust Legislation: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint from 1890-1941
394:
751:
735:
487:
277:
238:
208:
146:
64:
359:
The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
254:
134:
8:
831:
284:, the business agent for the UHU, but the list of defendants included 240 union members.
178:
142:
742:
836:
696:
688:
490:
700:
552:
425:
234:
410:
Prosecution of labor under antitrust laws would continue until the enactment of the
680:
154:
67:
547:
304:
126:
684:
671:
Walter Gordon
Merritt (September 1910). "The Law of the Danbury Hatters Case".
249:
In 1901, D. E. Loewe & Company, a fur hat manufacturer, declared itself an
170:
158:
790:
281:
448:
Albany
International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie
692:
83:
616:
Lawyers against labor: from individual rights to corporate liberalism
375:
250:
715:
371:
262:
100:
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
79:
30:
673:
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
583:. South-Western, Division of Thomson Learning, 2008. p. 78.
328:
in the act, and the action can be maintained accordingly."
503:
public domain material from this U.S government document
629:
The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice
807:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court
670:
290:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
657:. University of North Carolina Press, 1994. p. 165.
548:Connecticut: A Guide to Its Roads, Lore and People
257:, the center of the pelt industry since 1780 (see
292:, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.
276:Loewe & Co. sued the union for violating the
253:. It was the third open shop ever established in
788:
459:Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co
221:, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), also referred to as the
261:). Loewe's declaration sparked a strike and a
618:. University of Illinois Press, 1995. p. 151.
54:Deitrich Loewe et al. v. Martin Lawlor et al.
579:William H. Holley and Kenneth M. Jennings.
631:. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. p. 162.
601:Danbury Museum & Historical Society,
575:
573:
571:
569:
567:
565:
538:
536:
404:Duplex Printing Press Company v. Deering
366:
789:
655:The State and Labor in Modern America
562:
533:
521:. Penn State University, 2006. p. 28.
18:1908 United States Supreme Court case
797:Labor disputes in the United States
300:In a unanimous decision written by
13:
605:. Arcadia Publishing, 2001. p. 79.
551:. Reprint: US History Publishers.
443:Labor history of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
853:
802:United States Supreme Court cases
738:274 (1908) is available from:
708:
817:United States antitrust case law
714:
494:
29:
647:
634:
362:
267:United Hatters of North America
822:1908 in United States case law
642:A Primer on American Labor Law
621:
608:
595:
586:
524:
509:
473:
1:
664:
399:Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
827:Legal history of Connecticut
812:United States labor case law
271:American Federation of Labor
7:
581:The Labor Relations Process
431:
378:in the Loewe v. Lawlor case
295:
227:United States Supreme Court
10:
858:
685:10.1177/000271621003600202
501:This article incorporates
417:United States v. Hutcheson
644:. MIT Press, 2004. p. 14.
207:
202:
191:
186:
120:
115:
109:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
43:Argued December 4–5, 1907
42:
28:
23:
543:Federal Writers' Project
466:
259:North American fur trade
244:
45:Decided February 3, 1908
438:United States labor law
231:United States labor law
627:Tomlins, Christopher.
379:
357:
349:
339:
237:as a violation of the
412:Norris–La Guardia Act
370:
353:
344:
334:
278:Sherman Antitrust Act
239:Sherman Antitrust Act
223:Danbury Hatters' Case
209:Sherman Antitrust Act
842:Danbury, Connecticut
255:Danbury, Connecticut
167:Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
779:Library of Congress
653:Dubofsky, Melvyn.
640:Gould, William B.
515:Carter, Saalim A.
380:
195:Fuller, joined by
131:Associate Justices
78:28 S. Ct. 301; 52
719:Works related to
614:Ernst, Daniel R.
426:Felix Frankfurter
235:secondary boycott
214:
213:
849:
783:
777:
774:
768:
765:
759:
756:
750:
747:
741:
718:
704:
658:
651:
645:
638:
632:
625:
619:
612:
606:
599:
593:
590:
584:
577:
560:
540:
531:
528:
522:
513:
507:
498:
497:
477:
179:William H. Moody
155:Rufus W. Peckham
116:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
857:
856:
852:
851:
850:
848:
847:
846:
787:
786:
781:
775:
772:
766:
763:
757:
754:
748:
745:
739:
728:Loewe v. Lawlor
721:Loewe v. Lawlor
711:
667:
662:
661:
652:
648:
639:
635:
626:
622:
613:
609:
600:
596:
592:Holley, p. 106.
591:
587:
578:
563:
541:
534:
529:
525:
514:
510:
495:
480:Loewe v. Lawlor
478:
474:
469:
434:
424:was written by
386:Lawlor v. Loewe
365:
305:Melville Fuller
298:
247:
218:Loewe v. Lawlor
169:
157:
147:Edward D. White
145:
143:David J. Brewer
127:Melville Fuller
87:
44:
38:
24:Loewe v. Lawlor
19:
12:
11:
5:
855:
845:
844:
839:
834:
829:
824:
819:
814:
809:
804:
799:
785:
784:
761:Google Scholar
724:
710:
709:External links
707:
706:
705:
666:
663:
660:
659:
646:
633:
620:
607:
594:
585:
561:
559:. pp. 132-133.
532:
530:Carter, p. 30.
523:
508:
471:
470:
468:
465:
464:
463:
455:
445:
440:
433:
430:
364:
361:
325:
324:
319:
318:
313:
312:
297:
294:
246:
243:
212:
211:
205:
204:
200:
199:
193:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
171:William R. Day
159:Joseph McKenna
135:John M. Harlan
132:
129:
124:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
854:
843:
840:
838:
835:
833:
830:
828:
825:
823:
820:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
800:
798:
795:
794:
792:
780:
771:
762:
753:
752:CourtListener
744:
737:
733:
729:
725:
723:at Wikisource
722:
717:
713:
712:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
669:
668:
656:
650:
643:
637:
630:
624:
617:
611:
604:
598:
589:
582:
576:
574:
572:
570:
568:
566:
558:
557:1-60354-007-5
554:
550:
549:
544:
539:
537:
527:
520:
519:
512:
506:
504:
493: (1908).
492:
489:
485:
481:
476:
472:
461:
460:
456:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
435:
429:
427:
423:
419:
418:
413:
408:
406:
405:
400:
396:
390:
388:
387:
377:
373:
369:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
338:
333:
329:
321:
320:
315:
314:
310:
309:
308:
306:
303:
302:Chief Justice
293:
291:
285:
283:
282:Martin Lawlor
279:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
210:
206:
201:
198:
194:
190:
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:Chief Justice
122:
121:
119:
114:
108:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
727:
679:(2): 11–22.
676:
672:
654:
649:
641:
636:
628:
623:
615:
610:
602:
597:
588:
580:
546:
526:
517:
511:
500:
479:
475:
457:
450:ECR I-5751 (
447:
421:
415:
409:
402:
391:
384:
381:
363:Significance
358:
354:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
326:
299:
286:
275:
248:
222:
217:
216:
215:
203:Laws applied
196:
187:Case opinion
174:
162:
150:
138:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
832:UNITE HERE
791:Categories
665:References
376:plaintiffs
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:488; 1908
837:Hatmaking
701:141355794
422:Hutcheson
251:open shop
197:unanimous
111:business.
60:Citations
726:Text of
545:(1938).
432:See also
395:Congress
374:for the
323:damages.
317:statute.
296:Judgment
229:case in
192:Majority
743:Cornell
693:1011702
603:Danbury
452:C-67/96
372:Verdict
265:by the
263:boycott
225:, is a
105:Holding
782:
776:
773:
770:Justia
767:
764:
758:
755:
749:
746:
740:
699:
691:
555:
499:
482:,
177:
175:·
173:
165:
163:·
161:
153:
151:·
149:
141:
139:·
137:
80:L. Ed.
734:
697:S2CID
689:JSTOR
486:
467:Notes
462:AC 25
245:Facts
97:Prior
736:U.S.
553:ISBN
488:U.S.
86:1769
73:more
65:U.S.
63:208
732:208
681:doi
491:274
484:208
347:us.
68:274
793::
730:,
695:.
687:.
677:36
675:.
564:^
535:^
703:.
683::
505:.
454:)
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.