American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that picketing by more the one person at an entrance or exit to a struck business was not protected by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. The court said that it was inherently a form of intimidation no matter how orderly the picket was.[1][2]
| American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 17, 1919 Reargued October 5, 1920 Reargued October 4–5, 1921 Decided December 5, 1921 | |
| Full case name | American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Trades Council, et al. |
| Citations | 257 U.S. 184 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Labor pickets are inherently intimidation. Only one person should be allowed at each entrance and exit of a business being struck. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Taft, joined by Day, Holmes, McKenna, McReynolds, Pitney, Van Devanter |
| Concurrence | Brandeis |
| Dissent | Clarke |
Superseded by | |
| Thornhill v. Alabama | |
This case was later superseded by cases like Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), which held that picketing was protected under free speech and the First Amendment.[3]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ "Pickets Must Not Molest Worker" (PDF). www.proquest.com. The New York Times. Dec 6, 1921. Archived from the original on February 2, 1922. Retrieved 2025-02-03.
- ^ "American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2025-02-03.
- ^ Ball, Howard. Hugo L. Black: Cold Steel Warrior. Oxford University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-19-507814-4. Page 202.
External links
editText of American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to a case of the Supreme Court of the United States of the Taft Court is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |