*1 tend to that the rates does not show on automobiles and persons prescribed by order are too low. commission’s supra, Cases, The Minnesota Rate 452-453. Baltimore States, & Ohio R. v. Co. U. 349, 372, 378, S. 381. appellant It follows that is not to a decree entitled confiscatory. the order is
More to dispose not be written need pre- issues of appellant’s sented in case. But in view earnest this it is contentions, inappropriate say record, light argument, considered in the its fails to show the rate reduction will lessen so revenues the Car- quinez bridge that there remain will sufficient, less than clause, under process the due constitute just compen- use—a sation for reasonable rate on its return the value of the bridge property.
Judgment affirmed. Mr. Black, Mr. Justice Justice Frankfurter Douglas concur the result. Mr. Justice HAGUE, MAYOR, et al. v. COMMITTEE FOR
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION et al. Argued February 28, No. 27, 651. 1939. Decided June *4 Messrs. Charles Hershenstein and Edward J. O’Mara with, Ham,ill whom Messrs. James A. John A. Mat- brief, thews were on the for petitioners. p. See Messrs. Morris L. Ernst Frazer, and Spaulding whom Messrs. Lee Pressman Benjamin Kaplan were brief, on the for respondents. See p. 668.
By leave Court, Committee on the Bill of Rights of the American Bar Association, filed a as amid brief, curiae, of assembly. discussing See p. 678. presiding Butler, the absence of
Mr. Justice McReynolds: Chief Justice Mr. Justice judgment The of the eoúrt in this case the decree is modified as modified affirmed. Justice Mr. Douglas and Mr. Justice took no part Eéankfurter the consideration or decision the case. Mr. Justice has opinion an in which Mr. Roberts Justice Black concurs, an opinion Mr. Justice Stone concurs. The Chief Justice Reed concurs Mr. Justice McReynolds opinion. in an and Mr. Mr. Justice dissent reasons in opinions stated Justice Butler by- them respectively. ,an opinion delivered in which
Mr. Justice Roberts concurred: Black Mr. Justice We as the granted certiorari case presents important questions in respect asserted privilege and im- munity of citizens advocate action ato federal pursuant statute, by distribution of printed ,and in peaceable oral discussion matter assembly; and of federal courts of jurisdiction suits restrain the - abridgment of privilege immunity. citizens’ respondents, unincorporated individual composed of such organizations citizens, labor and mem- *5 in the United brought suit States corporation, bership petitioners, the against Mayor, the Court District and the Chief of Police Safety, Public Director of Board of and the Jersey, New Commis- Jersey City, body city. sioners, governing acting that under a for- city ordinance alleges The bill permit without a leasing any hall, from bidding the public meeting for a at Police, which a the Chief advocate obstruction of the Government of shall speaker change a State, government or or the United means, petitioners, and their than lawful by other respondents the right to subordinates, have denied hold on Jersey City ground meetings in that they lawful organizations; or Communist that pur- are Communists petitioners plan, unlawful have to an caused suant municipality persons they con- the eviction of their labor organization undesirable because sidered they have announced will activities, and continue so alleges acting under It further an to do. ordinance to any “distribute or person forbids cause to be any about street or public place or strewn distributed book, periodical, magazine, newspapers, paper, circular, petitioners have pamphlet,” card discriminated by prohibiting and respondents against.the interfering pamphlets of leaflets distribution with re- others to permitting while distribute spondents similar pursuant plan matter, and conspiracy printed their Constitutional deny States, petitioners have citizens caused acting with them, those be arrested respondents, matter in the printed streets, distributing have associates, beyond carried and their them, caused remote places therein, to city have limits ferry boats destined for them board New compelled force, interfered with violence and have, York; discussing the rights citizens pamphlets distribution under the Labor unlaw- Act; National Relations into the fully persons searched and seized coming city matter printed possession; have arrested and *6 prosecuted acting them, those for respondents, and printed to attempting matter; distribute and have threatened if respondents that attempt to hold public meetings in the city rights to discuss afforded National Labor .Act, they arrested; Relations would be unless restrained, petitioners will continue unlawful conduct. bill further alleges The respondents repeatedly applied permits for to hold meetings public city in the for the stated purpose, ordinance,1 required by although they do not admit the validity ordinance; but in execution of a common plan purpose, petitioners have consistently re- fused to issue for permits meetings to or be by, held by, sponsored respondents, and have thus prevented the City 1“Tbe Board Jersey of Commissioners of Do Ordain: passage “1. From and after ordinance, public this no parades public assembly upon public or in or streets, highways, public parks public buildings Jersey City or shall take place or permit be conducted until a shall be obtained from the Director Safety. Public Safety hereby “2. Director of Public is authorized and em- powered permits grant parades for public assembly, upon to days prior to him at least three application proposed made to the parade public assembly. . Safety
“3. The Director of hereby Public is authorized to refuse issue permit'when, investigation 'said after of all of the facts pertinent application, and circumstances to said he believes it to be proper to refuse thereof; provided, however, issuance that said permit only be refused purpose shall preventing riots, dis- disorderly assemblage. turbances or Any person persons “4. violating any provisions of this upon ordinance shall police magistrate conviction before a City Jersey City punished by a fine exceeding not two hundred imprisonment dollars or County jail in the Hudson period for a exceeding days ninety or both.” of such holding meetings; the not, did not, do propose advocate the destruction or over- throw the Government of the United States, or that of New Jersey, but that their sole purpose explain workingmen the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, the benefits to be derived it, and the which aid Organization Committee for Industrial fur- would workingmen nish end; and all the activities they seek to engage Jersey City were, and are, to be performed peacefully, without intimidation; fraud, violence, or other unlawful methods.
The bill charges that suit is to redress depriva- “the under tion, color state law, statute ordinance, rights privileges immunities secured Cbnsti- tution of and of United States secured laws *7 of the United for providing equal rights States of citizens . . of .” that charges the United States It peti- the violation tioners’ “is in of [respondents] conduct the rights as privileges guaranteed by and Constitution of the alleges the petitioners’ United States.” It that “in pursuance conduct has been of an unlawful conspir- ... threaten acy injure oppress and intimidate of States, the United including citizens the individual in ... the free plaintiffs herein, exercise enjoyment and rights of and secured privileges the them the Con- of United stitution and laws the States. ...” charges The that bill the ordinances are unconstitu- void, tional and or are being against respondents enforced and in an unconstitutional discriminatory way; and that officials the the as of petitioners, city, purporting to act ordinances, deprived respondents under the of speech peaceable free and secured assembly citizens of them, States, by as the United the Four- injunction Amendment. an prays against It teenth con- of petitioners’ tinuance conduct. aris- nature, of is a civil the cause alleges that
The bill States, of the United laws and Constitution ing under exclu- $3,000, controversy exceeds the amount wherein to redress equity a suit costs; and is of and sive interest statute and law, of state under color deprivation, immunities secured and of ordinance, rights, privileges se- of States, of United the Constitution of the United States providing the laws cured all of of equal rights citizens of the United States. the jurisdiction within persons allega- qualifies, generally, denies answer individual deny that but does bill tions States; denies of the United citizens are to each controversy plaintiff “as amount in- $3,000, exclusive of each defendant” exceeds against alleges grounds costs; supposed terest and frivolous, being alleged jurisdiction are no facts of federal question federal substantial sufficient show involved. upon
After trial merits District Court entered of law fact and conclusions decree findings respondents.2 In brief, the court found that favor other respondents, than the American Civil purposes organization were the Union, unorganized Liberties into labor unions, causing such exercise workers unions to legal normal functions labor organizations, bargaining respect collective to the better- of work hours and other wages, terms and condi- ment and that these employment, purposes law- tions were *8 in ful; acting that petitioners, the their official capacities, adopted and have enforced the deliberate policy of ex- from removing Jersey City and cluding agents of the the respondents; have interfered with their passage the upon the streets and access to the parks city; that have been accomplished ends these force and violence Supp. 25 F. acting despite the affected were persons the fact that removal, manner; exclusion, an and that orderly peaceful restraint and force and interference, violence, personal accomplished authority of without are without law and custody the taken into before promptly bringing persons judicial hearing. officer for a
The court further that the petitioners, officials, found in reliance on the sub- acting ordinance with the dealing ject, adopted policy and enforced a deliberate their preventing respondents, associates, distributing or circulars, leaflets, Jersey City; handbills has been policemen acting that this done forcibly petitioners violently; propose that continue to prevention; enforce the that policy the circulars handbills, of which has distribution been prevented, morals, were to public not offensive and did not advocate unlawful but conduct, germane were purposes to the alleged that bill, distribution was being in way public carried out consistent with order and molestation of or without individuals misuse or littering findings streets. Similar respect were made distribution, prevention of placards. findings are that the petitioners, as officials, have adopted policy enforced deliberate of forbidding assoqiates and their from communicating respecting their views the National Labor Relations Act Jersey City to the citizens of by holding meetings or open assemblies air and at public places; that there competent no proof the proposed speakers have spoken assembly ever at an where a peace breach occurred at which utterances were made which proper violated canons of discussion gave occasion consequent upon disorder what was said; that there is no competent proof parks of Jersey City are dedicated to any general purpose other than the recreation public there is competent proof that
506 to various granted permits have municipal authorities meetings at respondents speak the than persons other city. the the in streets and respondents, of the found the court that peti- with and frustrated interfered them,
each excess of in respondent, as to each tioners, value, had a costs; peti- that interest and $3,000, exclusive of against respond- policy their tioners’ enforcement re- damage; that irreparable latter ents caused and threatened with manifold have been spondents inva- and manifold and repeated repeated persecution, nothing they and that done rights; sions equitable them to relief. to disentitle jurisdiction had 24§ that it under The court concluded (14) Code; Judicial that the peti- (1) (12) and policy acts were violation official tioners’ Amendment, that had Fourteenth action under the Constitution of a cause of established 1980, 1979, R. S. R. and under S. the United States amended.4 S. as R. in the find- Appeals Court of concurred
The Circuit jurisdiction under held the District Court had fact; ings of (14) Code; the Judicial modified de- (1) § and, provisions, modified, of its respect of one cree affirmed it.5 error, petitioners limit specifications of
By their They court to three matters. contend issues in this in holding erred that below the District court jurisdiction over all or had some the causes of Court they bill. Secondly, assert that action stated holding street meeting ordinance court erred face, on its it been has un- unconstitutional (12) (14). (1), S. 28 U. C. § (3), 51. 43 and 47 18 U. S. C. C. 4 8 U.S. §§ 5Hague Organization, Industrial v. Committee 101 P. 2d constitutionally administered. Thirdly, they claim that the decree must be set aside because it exceeds the court’s power and is impracticable of enforcement or of *10 compliance. Every question
First. arising under the Constitution if may, properly in court, raised a state come ultimately to this for court decision. Until 1875,6 save for the lim- jurisdiction ited conferred by Rights the Civil Acts, infra, federal courts jurisdiction had no original of actions or merely suits because the matter in controversy arose under Constitution or of laws the United States; and jurisdiction then and since conferred upon United States courts has been narrowly limited.
Section 24 of the Judicial Code confers original juris- diction upon District Courts of United States. Sub- (1) gives jurisdiction of section of a nature, “suits civil at common law in . . . equity, or where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive and costs, the interest $3,000” sum or value of and “arises under the Constitu- tion or laws the United States.” wrongs which respondents complain are tor- alleged rights tious civil by persons invasions acting authority. under color of state It is true if that plaintiffs brought various had actions at law for the re- wrongs the necessary dress of such amount jurisdiction (1) under 24 would have been determined by the sum good claimed in faith.7 But it not does follow in suit restrain rights a threatened invasions such mere averment of amount controversy confers jurisdiction. brought In suits under (1) subsection allegation to the amount traverse of contro- versy, motion to upon or a dismiss based the absence of 6 1875, 137, 3, See March c. Stat. 470. Act of 58; Wiley Sinkler, Templeton, U. S. v. 185 U. S. Swafford Indemnity Compare Mercury Paid v. Red Co., 487. St. Co. Cab 303 U. S. part proof on the substantial amount, calls justifying conclusion facts plaintiff necessary sum.8 The here is record involves the
suit any showing of the value of asserted bare of individually suggestion that, and the to the unavailing, they requisite value since total, their interests order may aggregate the plaintiffs necessary give jurisdiction.9 We to attain the amount jurisdiction District Court lacked under conclude (1). 24§ law in grants jurisdiction of suits “at or (14)
Section brought person to be by any law equity authorized law,.stat under color of deprivation, to redress the ordinance, custom, usage, any State, regulation, ute, immunity, privilege, secured any right, *11 States, of any right Constitution of the se United. United States for providing law of the cured States, United or of all equal rights of citizens 10 jurisdiction of the United States.” within the persons rights insist petitioners The deprived been not they have are say within (14). in subsection The courts below described those possess that citizens of the held citizenship; the Fourteenth rights by virtue of rights against aby secures these invasion Amendment Congress legislation by State, and authorizes enforce the Amendment.
8
Acceptance Corp.,
McNutt
General Motors
v.
178;
298 U. S.
KVOS,
Press,
Inc. v. Associated
Prior to the Civil War there was confusion debate as to the relation between United States citizenship citizenship. state Beyond dispute, citizenship United States, as such, Constitution, existed. it11 clauses, recognized various but nowhere it. defined Many thought citizenship, only, state and that created (cid:127)United States citizenship.12
After the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, bill, which became the Rights first Civil Act.13 intro- duced the 39th Congress, major purpose of which was to recently secure to the negroes freed all the civil rights secured to white men. This act declared that all persons subject born the United States, any foreign power, excluding taxed, Indians not were citi- zens the United States and should have the same in every State to make and enforce contracts, be sue, parties, give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey personal real and property, and to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all and proceedings laws the security of persons property to the same extent white, None other than citizens of the United citizens. States were within provisions of the Act. It provided “any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State ... the deprivation any right secured or protected by this act” should guilty of a It misdemeanor. also conferred jurisdiction on district courts of civil actions persons *12 deprived of by them its terms. secured
By reason of power doubts as to the to enact legis- lation, policy hnd because the thereby might evidenced be by subsequent reversed Congress, there was intro-
11 I, 3; II, See Art. 2 and Art. 1. §§ § 12 Sandford, See Scott v. 19 393. How. 13 April 9, 1866, 31, Act of c. 14 Stat. 27.
510 an amendment session additional at same duced . the Fourteenth. which became Constitution of the Amendment settled old sentence The first citizenship by providing “All per- controversy as States, subject the United or sons born naturalized are of thereof, citizens the United jurisdiction to the they wherein reside.” Thence- the State of of the United States became citizenship primary forward secondary.14 State citizenship of of the Amendment further provides: The first section or enforce law any make which shall shall “No State or immunities of the citizens abridge the . States; ...” United Rights passed by Act was Civil the 41st second the provisions enforce purpose Its Congress. Amendment, pursuant to the authority Fourteenth fifth section of the amendment. Congress granted Rights Act of the Civil 1866. it reenacted By § 18 Civil.Rights April Act, adopted 1871,16 A 20, third person who, color of any “That under law, provided any or ordinance, regulation, custom, usage any statute, to be subject, subjected, or any cause State, person shall United States to jurisdiction depri- within rights, privileges, any immunities secured vation .States, shall, any the Constitution ordinance, statute, regulation, custom, law, usage contrary notwithstanding, to the the State liable to action at injured law, suit party or. equity, . .” proceeding redress; . proper This, other changes arrangement of the clauses which were not scope provision, intended alter R. became S. 1979, 8, § now Title United States Code. Cases, 366, 245 U. S. Selective Draft 389. 1870, May The act was amended 31, Stat. 140. an Act February 1871, 16 28, Stat. 433.
16 17 Stat.
511 Four- said, prior As has been to the of the adoption no defi- Amendment, there had been teenth constitutional citizenship of of-the United or of the States, rights, nition privileges, thereby springing and. immunities secured immunities” phrase “privileges The was therefrom.' 2 IV, of the which Constitution, Article decrees .used of each State shall be to all “The Citizens entitled that in the Privileges and Immunities of several Citizens States.” thought recognized that time it this section
At one according to the rights which, jurisprudence of a group “natural and that rights”; were classed as day, the section was to create of rights of citizens purpose the citizens by guaranteeing States the United rights recognition .group of this every State Such was view of Justice every other State. Washington.17 description this of the civil
While citizens has it quoted approval,18 been States has that IV, 2,§ the settled view Article to be does come State with him citizen of one carries import fundamental privileges another into immunities necessarily by himto fact of. his come mere in the citizenship mentioned, but, State first on the con- citizen every any other State State trary, and immunities which the same is section, in enjoy. effect, pre- The State citizens discriminating against a State citizens other vents in favor own.19 its 17 371; C. C. 6 Coryell, v. 4 Wash. Fed. Cas. No. 3230. Corfield 18 36, 76; 16 Slaughter-House Cases, Wall. Maxwell v. Dow, The 581, 588, 591; Canadian Ry. Eggen, S. Co. v. U. Northern 553, 560. S.U. 173; Alexandria, 19 Downham v. 10 Wall. v. Baltimore Chambers 142; Co., 248 U. McMaster, U. v. La Tourette S. S. & Ohio R. 522; S. Birmingham Ry. Co., U. & W. Chalker N. whether to dis- presented now freedom question concerning provisions information seminate *14 Act, to assemble for Relations peaceably National Labor and ad- opportunities and of the Act, of the discussion immunity of a by is a it, privilege offered vantages against abridg- United States secured state citizen of the Amendment; and' 1 of the Fourteenth by § ment20 24 of the Judicial Code (14) R. 1979 whether S. abridgment. for such in a federal court’ afford redress record, the question presented is the narrow This decision to without consideration it, we confine our bill, the an- parties urge. The broader issues which findings fully present question. The and the swer findings allegation,- and. the sustain alleges, bill purpose had no other than to inform City speech, by the written Jersey .citizens out of growing legisla- matters national word, respecting this constitutionality court'has sus- tion, the tained. it has been held the Fourteenth Amend-'
Although rights States, no citizens United ment created rights existing against abridg- state merely but secured right- to assemble peaceably ment,21 it is clear respect- and to communicate topics, these to discuss in- orally writing, is a privilege them, whether ing United States which the citizenship herent protects. Amendment 37; 254 Wheeler, U. Carter, 252 U. S. v. S. United States
Shaffer v.
377;
Co.,
U.
York,
H.
281; Douglas
S.
N. H. &
R.
v.
279
New
297 U. S.
Ohio,
v.
Whitfield
20
meaning
within the
constitutes state action
As to what
313;
Rives,
parte Virginia,
amendment,
v.
100 U
Virginia
see
S.
Ex
S. 278;
347;
Angeles,
339,
Home Tel. Co. v. Los
U.
100 U. S.
112;
103,
Lovell v.
Griffin,
Mooney Holohan, 294 U.
S.
S.
303 U.
v.
.
444, 450
77;
16 Wall.
Minor Cases,
Happersett,
Slaughter-House
339;
Virginia,
162;
100 U.
Kemmler,
In
S.
parte
Ex
re
21 Wall.
.8
436, 44
U. S.
Slaughter-House
In
Cases it was
In States v. U. S. the court said: (cid:127) assemble for right people peaceably
“The of griev- purpose petitioning Congress for a redress ances, thing powers or for else connected with government, or the duties of the national is an attribute such, of nationál under the citizenship, and, protection guaranteed very the United idea States. The of, by, on government; republican form, of a implies part peaceably of its citizens to meet consultation *15 petition and to for a respect public affairs redress If alleged in grievances. of it had been these counts a meet- object that the the defendants prevent ing for a the case would have been within purpose, sovereignty and within the statute, scope the United States.” contrary view has ever been voiced expression
No court. by this Act the policy National Labor Relations declares
The remove to com- of the United States to obstructions be to by encouraging bargaining, collective protecting merce self-organization full freedom association through representatives, workers, and, negotiating employment. as to conditions little better Citizenship of the United would be with it carry name if it did discuss than benefits, advantages, op- legislation and national All of citizens therefrom. to accrue to portunities single activities this end had proscribed respondents’ had jurisdiction under The Court aim. District 24 (14). § rH -sH persons, they alone,
Natural are entitled to the and immunities Fourteenth Amendment secures for “citizens of the United States.” Only the individual respondents may, therefore, main- tain this suit.
Second. What has been said that, demonstrates in the light found, privileges facts immunities of the individual respondents as citizens of the United States, were infringed by the petitioners, by virtue of their official positions, under color of Jersey ordinances of City, unless, petitioners contend, city’s ownership of streets and parks as absolute as one’s ownership of his home, with consequent power altogether to exclude citi thereof, zens from the use or unless, though city holds the streets for public trust use, the absolute denial of their use to the is a valid exercise of the police power. findings of negative fact the latter assumption.
In
former the
support
petitioners
rely upon Davis
Massachusetts,
U. S. 43. There it appeared that,
f
pursuant
enabling
city
o
legislation,
Boston
adopted an ordinance prohibiting anyone from speaking,
fire
discharging
arms, selling goods, or maintaining any
booth for
on
public
amusement
of the public grounds
under
city except
a permit from Mayor.
Davis
on Boston Common
spoke
permit
without a
and without
Mayor
applying to
for one.
charged
He was
awith
violation of
quash
the ordinance and moved to
the com
on
alia,
inter
*16
plaint,
ground that
the ordinance
abridged his privileges and immunities as a
of
citizen
the
denied him
United States and
due process of law because
it
arbitrary
was
unreasonable.
His contentions were
he
overruled and
was convicted. The judgment was
v.
Daggs,
557;
U. S.
Orient Insurance
Co.
Holt v. Indiana
68;
S.U.
Manufacturing Co.,
Assn. v. Greenberg,
Western Turf
Walsh,
359;
204 U. S.
Selover,
Bates & Co.
The be of holding decision seems state court that the Common under absolutely the “was legislature,” was “con- of and that it thus the control the in the right there no clusively plaintiff determined was use the common in mode except such and sub- error legislature as ject regulations the its wisdom prescribe.” The Court proper have deemed added may Fourteenth Amendment did not destroy police regulations a of the States enact as to sub- power public enable citizens to use ject within control of the constitution of property defiance laws State. question
The had a dif- apparently ordinance there here from one for purpose challenged, ferent solely right not directed at exercise of it was as but addressed well assembly, was to other speech activities, rights, not in nature of civil doubtless régulated prohibited respects their enjoy- might In ordinance the instant case parks. ment-in deals of. assembly exercise for the only communicating speakers, entertained by views purpose a con- general promote public measure and is in the of the or parks. venience use streets We have occasion to determine on the whether,, no- Davis rightly case but disclosed, decided, facts we it rules the instant case. agree cannot Wherever the have may they parks rest, immemori- title streets for the use of the public held in trust time ally and, been mind, been purposes out of used assembly, thoughts citizens, between discussing communicating questions. Such use the streets public public has, times, part ancient been places privi- rights, and liberties leges, 'immunities, citizens. United States citizen to use privilege *17 r-H CD of on national for communication views parks
streets and all; interest of it is in the not may regulated be questions in be exercised subordi- and must absolute, relative, but in. the general convenience, comfort and nation to not, but it must good order; peace with consonance abridged of be or denied. guise regulation, the the holding below was We think court quoted upon face.23 It Note void its does ordinance or convenience in of make the use streets not comfort official It of action. the Di- the standard enables parks on his Safety permit opinion rector of to refuse a mere prevent “riots, refusal will disturbances or that such dis- assemblage.” It can orderly thus, discloses, record of arbitrary made instrument suppression be free prohibition of views on national for the expression affairs, undoubtedly “prevent” all will speaking such even- tualities. But uncontrolled official suppression cannot made the duty a substitute privilege maintain order connection with the exercise of the right.
The bill
that policemen, acting
recited
under peti-
tioners’ instructions, had searched various persons,
in-
had
eluding
respondents,
seized innocent circu-
and pamphlets
lars
without warrant
probable
cause.
relief
injunctive
against repetition
It prayed
con-
this
District
no
duct. The
Court made
findings of fact con-
such searches and
cerning
seizures
granted
no relief
respect
them.
Circuit
Appeals
Court
did
enlarge
not
terms
but
decree
found that un-
reasonable searches and seizures had occurred
Fourth
prohibitions
Amendment
been
had
taken over
Fourteenth
as to protect
so
citizens of
the United
against
such action.
Griffin, supra.
Lovell v.
See the construction of the
ordinance
Supreme
Jersey
Court of New
Casey,
in Thomas v.
121 N.
L.
J.
185:
The decree as affirméd In each of provi- restrain or seizures. its searches liberty person, sions addressed to interference with *18 exclude, or the and interfere conspiracy deport, to bodily respondents pursuit peaceable with the in their activities, saving the decree contains clause following the in typical: “except per- is far as such so in any right sonal restraint is accordance with of search In light and seizure.” the of this reservation we think there Appeals was no occasion for the Circuit Court of the question exemption' discuss whether from the and proscribed by searches seizures the Fourth Amend- ment is afforded the and immunities clause and Fourteenth, the we have no occasion consider question. or decide such objections
Third. It remains to consider the to the' A liberty decree. Section deals with of the person and prohibits petitioners excluding the from or removing the acting with respondents persons or them from Jersey City, personal restraint exercising over them without warrant confining or them without lawful arrest production and judicial for prompt hearing, saving of them lawful search interfering with their seizure; and free access»to the streets, public parks, places city. The argu- ment is this section of the decree vague is so in its impractical terms as to' enforcement or obedience. agree with court below that objection We is not ' well founded. n B with liberty Section deals of the mind. Paragraph 1 of, from enjoins interfering petitioners with the right respondents, agents their and those acting with them, to communicate views as individuals to others on orderly peaceable the streets an manner. It re- petitioners liberty full serves to enforce law and order lawful search and seizure or arrest pro- judicial before think duction officer. We paragraph this unassailable. dis- enjoin interference
Paragraphs The de- circulars, placards. handbills tribution of under which attempts to formulate conditions cree. may distribute sympathizers and their respondents absolutely interference. The. ordinance literature free of under our decision such distribution is void prohibiting petitioners concede. Griffin, supra, so Lovell v. All are goes respondents too far. think the decree We declaring the ordinance void entitled to a decree enforcing it. enjoining petitioners public meetings. Although to do with has Paragraph void, ordinance the decree en- below held the court they manner which joins the shall petitioners an- initial administer it. command There is petitioners place “any previous upon shall not restraint” respect holding meetings, provided *19 required by the they apply permit for “a ordinance. as by This is followed an conditions enumeration permit may granted under which a be or denied. We wrong. think this is As the ordinance is void, re- spondents are entitled to a decree so declaring an and injunction against petitioners. its enforcement They are to hold without a meetings permit free and regard without to the terms of the void ordinance. The ordinance, courts cannot rewrite the as the decree, in effect, does.
The bill should be dismissed all save the individ- B, 3 plantiffs, paragraphs 2, ual 4 of the decree should be modified as indicated. In other respects the affirmed. should be decree
Mr. Justice Stone:
I do not doubt that the decree below, modified as has rightly is I proposed, affirmed, been but am unable to follow path of my some brethren have at- I end, tained that think the matter is of sufficient merit importance to discussion in some detail.
519
It has
explicitly
been
and repeatedly affirmed by this
Court, without a dissenting
voice,
freedom of speech
,are
assembly
lawful
of'
purpose
rights
personal
to all
liberty secured
without
persons,
to'
regard
citizenship, by
process
the due
clause of
Fourteenth
York,
Amendment. Gitlow v. New
U.
S. 652; Whit
268
ney v. California,
Kansas,
As will presently maintain a suit state, state equity officers, acting to restrain under a law, infringing freedom of speech and - by the assembly guaranteed process due clause, Congress every person Act of within given juris- States whether of the United a citizen or not, diction maintained in may suit district court with- *20 jurisdictional or that the .allegation proof out amount by (1) 24 required § Judicial Code is involved. occasion, jurisdictional is no Hence there purposes to whether any other, consider freedom of or speech and assembly by are immunities secured the privileges the Fourteenth immunities clause of Amendment to citi- States, United or zens the to revive the contention, 520 Cases, in
rejected Slaughter-House Court the by this immunities of United States supra, that the privileges beyond extend those by clause, that citizenship, protected relationship out the of United grow which arise to government.1 States citizens the national 1 Slaughter-House -immunity Cases asserted the privilege The alleged calling, business or pursue a common was the freedom monopoly be by statute. It should not been a state have infringed deciding case, deny forgotten Court, did not the con the that justices was in dissenting that asserted tention of freedom its decision rather on law. It rested infringed by fact state belonging' the; immunity claimed was one ground to. quite clear,” citizenship. “It is the Court persons by virtue citizenship States, (p. 74), “that there is a United declared other, distinct from each citizenship State, which are and a individual.” And depend characteristics on different privileges protection and immunities clause it held that state “fundamental” attached to did not extend to those peculiarly the creation and concern of are state citizenship which Washington, governments which Mr. Justice v. Corfield 3230, mistakenly thought 371, Fed. Cas. No. Coryell, C. C. 4 Wash. IV, guaranteed by priv Article 2 of the be Constitution. States, pointed it ileges citizens of and immunities of growing limited class of interests out of out, are confined to government citizen and the national relationship between the Slaughter-House laws. and federal created the Constitution Twining 79; Jersey, Cases, 36, see v. New 16 Wall. U. S. 78, 97, 98. operation upon privileges and im
That limitation later clause has not decisions munities been.relaxed of this Kemmler, 436, 448; Blacker, 136 U. S. McPherson Court. re v. In Tiernan, 1, 38; 661; v. 148 U. Giozza S. Duncan v. U. S. Upon ground appeals Missouri, 377, 382. 152 U. this S. beyond uniformly clause the- limitation Court to extend thé have privileges rejected, those basic been and even immunities se infringement by eight against. federal the first amendments cured protected uniformly been held not state action Sauvinet, immunities clause. Walker v. 92 U. S. California, 516; Illinois, 90; 110 U. S. Presser v. Hurtado v. 252; Dow, Vermont, 323; 144 U. S. Maxwell O’Neill v. U. S.
521
That
is
application
the limited
now
by my
and immunities clause seems
to be conceded
brethren. But
is
it
said that the freedom of
with which
petitioners
have interfered
“free-
dom to disseminate
concerning
provisions
information
peace-
the National
Act,
Labor Relations
to assemble
581;
Twining
Louisiana,
258;
U. S.
Jersey,
194
v.
U. S.
New
West v.
supra;
Connecticut,
Palko v.
The reason for this narrow clause construction of the and the consistently enlarge scope exhibited reluctance its this Court to Slaughter-House has been well understood since the decision of the If upon Cases. its restraint state action to be were extended' more relationships than is needful protect' between citizen - government, and the national and if it to be to ex were deemed tend to those person fundamental property attached citizenship by the common law and enactments of states when the adopted, Amendment was such as were described Cor ’ Coryell, enlarge supra, Congressional judicial v. it would field multiply upon control of state action nature, restrictions it whose though anticipate precision, difficult to would be of sufficient gravity apprehension rightful independence serious cause for the government. in, fought Slaughter local That the issue out Cases, against enlargement. House with the decision fifty Of the more brought cases have been to this Court adoption since the of the Fourteenth Amendment in which state violating statutes been assailed the privileges and immuni- only single clause, ties case was a statute infringe held to privilege immunity peculiar to citizenship of the United States. one, Colgate Harvey, In that 404, thought v. 296 U. S. it was nec- essary support specific decision to the pointing reference Slaughter-House Cases, supra, in the 79, right pass freely to the state, state to sustained citizenship as a of national Nevada, 35, adoption Crandall v. 6 Wall. before Amendment.
The cases will found collected in Footnote 2 dissenting opinion Colgate Harvey, 296 S. v. U. 445. To these' should be added Hardy, 366; Ferry Holden v. Spokane, 169 S.U. v. P. & Co., 314; Bryant R. S. S. New York U. ex rel. Zimmerman, v. 63; S. Ohio, U. 431; Suttles, U. S. Breedlove v. Whitfield 277; 302 U. S. Connecticut, Palko v. S. 319. U. *22 of the opportunities Act, and discussion for ably' privi are that these and by it,” advantages offered and United States citizens of immunities of and leges and privileges abridgment by against state secured has It Amendment. Fourteenth immunities clause for the assemble of citizens said been griev of Congress for the redress purpose of petitioning protected citizenship States of privilege ances is a United United clause. and immunities by privileges mayWe assume Cruikshank, 92 552-553. U. S. long and is although step present purposes, for ;581 Dow, U. S. one, Maxwell v. no means certain see supra, right to assemble Jersey, that the Twining Newv. Labor Relations advantages of the National to discuss the privileges and by the Act is secured privilege likewise but States, of the United immunities to citizens clause purpose for the to assemble others, not to while freedom within statute would not be a similar discussing, of state difficulty But and immunities clause. privileges show, as the and briefs assumption is, record with this in this case after afterthought emerging an first it is decision, like to us most after it submitted was litigated adequate sup it without thoughts in matters is in the record. port complaint specifically
The their bill of quoted IV, 2,§ Article now conceded named equal protection and the due inapplicable, process Amendment the provisions of the Fourteenth clauses of free rights of which secure them the Constitution assembly. speech They omitted the of Fourteenth immunities clause Amendment quotation. specific no They allegation made any of freedom had those whose been interfered with gen- was a citizen of petitioners the United States. allegation of complained that the petitioners acts of eral violate “citizens the United States, in- eluding plaintiffs here,” allega- the individual and other like petitioners’ tions of were answer. tenor, denied There no either below that finding by any court respondents or freedom of speech those whose assembly infringed has are citizens been States, and we are to no part referred the evidence in citizenship which their is mentioned or from which it can be inferred.
Both courts below and the evidence found, supports findings, purpose that the other than respondents, Civil Union, meetings Liberties in holding Jersey City, to organize labor unions various industries in order to secure to workers the benefits collective bar- respect gaining wages, betterment hours of *23 work other terms of employment. and conditions organized Whether the be in in- proposed unions were to subject which National might dustries to the Labor jurisdiction Relations Act or to the of the National Labor Neither appear. Relations Board does not court below any finding meetings has made the that were called to discuss, or that ever they did fact the discuss, National Labor findings support Relations Act. The do not the the proposed any conclusion that meetings involved such between relationship the national government and re- spondents any or of them, they assuming are citizens of the. States, United as to show right that asserted a citizen privilege was the United I States, and say adequate cannot an basis been for has laid sup- theory respondents porting a evi- themselves —which not dently any did entertain-^that of their privileges as of the States, guaranteed citizens United the Four- Amendment, teenth were abridged, distinguished from as privileges guaranteed persons by to all the due process True, findings clause. refer to the suppression by petitioners of exhibits, one which to out be a turns handbill advising they legal workers right, have the under repre- to labor union choose own Wagner Act, to injunction, But the bargaining. in collective them sent to restricted sustains, is rightly now the Court which pertain said right, protection information about to disseminate citizenship, applies contrary it extends Act. On Wagner respondents with interferences terms to broadest any law- disseminating meeting lawful holding any placard. handbill and leaflet, by circular, ful information are entitled think, If, my as brethren them secured only maintain this suit Fourteenth clause immunities information to disseminate Amendment —here the plain Relations Act —it is Labor about the National does, it enjoining, too as the decree broad. Instead all for and the meetings purposes interferences with all n lawful all should information, it dissemination dissemina- restraint to interferences confined its Relations tion of about the National Labor information below Act, through meetings otherwise. court limitation from evi- decree, omitted rightly any petitioners’ infringed declared, it acts dently because, guarantees process persons due to all clause, speech assembly freedom of lawful purpose. important more
No
grave
brought
issue can be
this Court
of freedom speech
than that
and assembly,
*24
which
due process
guarantees
clause
to
persons
all
re-
gardless
citizenship,
of their
but which the privileges and
immunities clause secures
to
only
citizens, and then only
to the limited
their
extent
relationship to the na-
tional government
I
is affected.
am unable to rest deci-
sion here on the
I think
assertion, which
the-record fails
respondents
to support,
depend
must
upon their
limited privileges as citizens of the United
States
order
their
upon
sustain
so
cause,
palpable an avoidance
have
case,
respondents
in the
issue
raised
real
by their
That
by
proof.
their
and sustained
pleadings
(cid:127)
maintained
issue
can be
present proceeding
whether
for the
(14)
pro-
under
of the Judicial Code as a suit
guaranteed by
tection
due
respondents’
maintain
right
I
it
clause.
think
process
rightly
cannot
depend
on
citizenship
does
non-existence
made to turn on the
or
be
existence
purpose
information
National
disseminate
about
enough
petitioners
Labor
It is
Relations Act.
respondents
meetings
prevented
holding
dis-
seminating information
organization
whether
of'
or for
other lawful
any
unions
purpose.
labor
If
be
it
of wisdom
part
unnecessary
to avoid
deci-
sion of
questions,
constitutional
it would seem
be
of novel
equally so to
the unnecessary
avoid
creation
con-
doctrine,
stitutional
supported by
record,
inadequately
in order
attain an
easily
certainly
end
reached
following
paths
the beaten
of constitutional
decision.
right
to maintain
present
suit
upon
is conferred
the individual
due
process clause and
regardless
Acts
Congress,
of their citizenship and of
in controversy.
the amount
Section 1 of the Civil Rights
April
Act
20,1871,17 Stat.
provided that “any per
who,
son
color of any
under
law, statute, ordinance . . .
of any State, shall subject, or
to be subjected,
cause
person
jurisdiction
within the
of the United States to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
se
cured
the Constitution
of the United States,
shall
...
be liable
injured
to the party
in any
law,
action at
suit
equity,
other proper proceeding for redress.”
it
And
directed that such proceedings should
prose
in the
cuted
several district or circuit'courts of the United
States. The>
of action given by this section was later
specifically limited to “any citizen of thevUnited
other person within the jurisdiction thereof,” and
*25
se
immunities
privileges and
rights,
to include
extended
by well as
as
the United States
laws of
by
cured
con
provision
was
thus modified
As
Constitution.
now con
and
Revised S+atutes
of the
tinued as
§
It
Code.
8 of
43 of Title
stitutes
by the
given
action,
of
the cause
(cid:127)will be observed
extends
form,
final
original
as its
as well
section in its
rights,
of the
state action
by
deprivation
broadly
the Corn
persons by
immunities
and
secured
privileges
Amendment
Fourteenth
It
thus includes the
stitution.
by the
are secured
immunities
privileges
and such
as
by
well as
the-'
clauses,
equal protection
due
process
It
immunities
Amendment.
clause
privileges
they
rights
those
secured
áre
will also be observed
not,
the United States
whether citizens of
persons,
the benefit
whom
Amendment
terms extends
process
equal protection clauses.
due
Slaughter-House
Following the
Cases
decision
judicial
expansion by
before the later
decision
equal
process
protection
the due
the content
little
for the
scope
operation
was
this
clauses, there
Fourteenth Amendment. The
under the
obser
statute
in United
Cruikshank,
Court
States v.
vation
right
that the
was
542, 551,
assembly
U. S.
not secured
by
Constitution,
action
against state
must be attrib
Slaughter-House
the decision
uted to
Cases that
only
peculiar
immunities
privileges and
United States
citizenship
were secured
and immunities
the,
fact that
and to
at that
clause,
further
time it had
decided that
protected
not been
one
argument
clause. The
process
due
that the
phrase
the,statute
“secured
the Constitution” refers to “created,”
“protected” by it, is not persua
rathervthan
.The
preamble
sive.
the Constitution, proclaiming the
Constitution
order to
establishment
“secure
in the sense
uses the word “secure”
Blessings
Liberty,”
*26
-
That
certain.”
was
phrase
or “make
of “protect”
now under
in
in the statute
used
this sense
consideration
Greenhow, 114
317, 322,
U. S.
in
v.
recognized
was
Carter
,as
pleading
par-
that the
it
a matter of
where was held
the-plaintiff’s pleading
set
in
ticular cause of action
up
of
deprivation
in contract
not to redress
was
and was
“right
by
secured to him that clause
the Constitution”
he had
clause],
contract
which
“chosen not
[the
See,
other
rights protected by
resort.”
as to
Consti-.
,and
by
brought
tution
hence secured
within the
it,
pro-
5508,
States,
Logan
§
visions R. S.
United
v.
U. S.
Quarles
Butler,
In re
263;
532;
U. S.
Mosley,
in district court to entertain the suit although the controversy in cannot matter be shown to exceed $3,000 in because asserted rights, value freedom speech assembly, freedom of are of such a nature as not to susceptible of in money. valuation The question is privilege same whether the asserted is se- cured immunities clause or any When Rights the Civil other. Act .1871 directed that 1§ for violation of of that Act suits should be prosecuted in the district and circuit courts, the only requirement jurisdictional in of a amount brought suits the federal imposed was that Judiciary courts Act of jurisdiction 1789, conferred on circuit courts of suits “the matter dispute” $500 where exceeded the United a plaintiff, States was or an party, alien was a or the suit was between citizens of different states; and it plain was then the requirement jurisdic- of a amount did not tional extend to the causes action Rights authorized by the Civil Act of 1871. Act By the 3, 137, jurisdiction of March c. 18 Stat. 1875,. courts was extended to common circuit suits at “arising in equity under the Constitution law or laws dispute which the matter of the United States” *27 By 3, 231, $500. exceeded the Act of March c. 1911, 36 1087, Stat. the circuit courts were abolished and their jurisdiction was transferred to the district courts, the jurisdictional ap- successive enactments amount $3,000. to certain classes of suits was raised to plicable modified, provisions applicable suits, to such thus 24 of the 28 (1) Code, Judicial U. C. appear §as S. 41 (1). § jurisdiction conferring on
Meanwhile, provisions brought 1 under § circuit courts over suits district and Act of 1871 were continued as R. S. Rights of the Civil 24 appear (14) § how the Judi- 629, §§ 563 3, 41 The Act of March (14). Code, § cial 28 U. S. C. 24 Ju- (1) § amended of the 1091, 1911, 1087, 36 Stat. foregoing provision that “The Code so as direct dicial controversy matter shall in the sum value as to of the cases mentioned apply construed 2 Thus, section.” of this succeeding paragraphs in the 2 existing change law in but inserted made no provision This upon point. removing See doubt H. R. all purpose of for the 388, 15; Cong., Rep. Sess., p. 2d Sen. No. 1, 61st 783, Part Rep. No. Miller-Magee Sess., p. 11. Cf. Co. v. Car Cong., 2d 1, 61st Part Hager, F. 433; Ames v. 34 F. penter, two 1875, jurisdictional since acts have contained on the fed- provisions, conferring jurisdiction one parallel “arising circuit, eral to entertain suits courts, district or in of the United States” under the Constitution or laws specified a controversy in exceeds which the amount Code, (14) of the Judicial value; other, § now of suits authorized on those courts conferring jurisdiction regardless of the amount Rights Act of by the Civil controversy. in are arising authorized suits of the suits thus
Since all depriva- to redress under United States a statute by the immunities secured tion of rights, under Con- “arising Constitution, literally all are suits ' But States.” it does not of the United stitution laws plaintiff required by in every such suit follow (1) allege prove Code of the Judicial vindicate which seeks to has immunity he constitutional $3,000. many rights are value in excess There of which freedom Constitution, immunities secured conspicuous examples, are assembly speech and. in- many of money valuation, and capable are not could be main- equity like no suit stances, present, jurisdictional if proof for their protection tained suppose We can prerequisite. hardly were amount Rights Civil broad terms having Congress, jurisdiction in all within the persons vested Act of equity action of the United States *28 cognizable immunities, only of deprivation constitutional 1875 by intended the Act of courts, federal in the withholding action from the by of destroy those entertain them. jurisdiction to United States courts of 1875 purpose not the Act was That such of federal of jurisdiction courts the causes extending Constitution or laws of under the the arising action jurisdictional specified amount, involving United States tjie upon continuance statute books of from the is evident 530 Code, § 24 of Judicial (1) 24 (14) by side side with
§ provisions of Since two by the Act as amended together, it obvious that neither be read is stand and must especially interpreted, abolishing other, as is to be 1911 of it remembered that amendment when is requirement (1) jurisdictional 24 of provided that § construed, be men- apply to cases amount should (14). legislative tioned This must be taken as § § there 1 of recognition by are suits authorized brought of 24 (14) after, 1871 which under Act could § before, as well as the amendment of 1875 without com- any requirement jurisdictional amount, of pliance at and that these least must be deemed to suits include subject incapable matter is one valuation. in which the forced to conclu- Otherwise we should be reach absurd meaningless 24 (14) large pro- § sion that is and that a Rights portion by authorized the Civil Act suits in any although jurisdiction maintained court, .cannot be requirement jurisdictional them, amount, with no preserved (14) of the carefully by Judicial Code § §of 24 (1). 1911 amendment By treating (14) jurisdiction federal conferring as suits § brought of 1871 in under the Act which the asserted inherently incapable pecuniary valuation, we har- provisions parallel monize two of the Judicial Code, neither superfluous, give construe to each a scope conformity history with its purpose. manifest given construction which been practical has this jurisdictional provisions to the two Court establishes that (14) jurisdiction conferred has been preserved § the extent indicated. In Co., Holt Indiana Mfg. brought alleged 176 U. S. suit was to restrain unconsti- of patent rights. tutional taxation The Court held that under the was one arising the suit Constitution or laws the meaning within (1) Code and that the United Judicial States Circuit Court *29 begun jurisdiction was without in suit had been which the jurisdictional less than the challenged tax was because the (14) the present § The Court remarked that amount. deprivation of “civil alleging rights.” only to suits applied Raich, U. aff’g in Truax S. hand, 33, other v. On the jurisdiction of Court sustained the a 273, 219 F. this of to restrain the suit an court to entertain alien district to alleged infringe an enforcement of a state statute equal clause the Fourteenth protection of the ment against in aliens Amendment because it discriminated juris right employment. to seek retain The similarly in of a court was sustained district Crane diction Johnson, 242 on. of Truax v. authority U. S. in a brought suit was district court Raich, supra. The alleged deny enforcement a state statute to restrain freedom to pursue in a equal suppressing protection For calling. purposes pres or trade particular note constitutional important it is ent case in alleged two or these cases was immunity one right not in one invoked the Raich case freedom, personal In the right States. both cases the United a citizen of equal privi under the protection, not arose .asserted cause clause; gist immunities both leges and un damage injury property, but of action was not liberty infringement right personal of a constitutional The money. jurisdiction susceptible valuation in not allegation or despite the omission of was sustained brought amount, pointedly of jurisdictional proof of this Court. attention inescapable con- the right seems conclusion of 1871 maintain equity the Act suit'
ferred the suitor protect against courts to depriva- the federal Constitution,, immunities secured tion whenever and that or im- .preserved, has been liberty, dependent munity personal one for its is infringement property rights, upon the existence there (14) jurisdiction the district court under proof it Code to entertain without Judicial *30 controversy $3,000. right amount in exceeds As is “any by the person” process clause, to due secured permits brought by statute the suit to be “any as it person” citizen, well as is certain as that resort to immunities clause would not support the decree which we now sustain and would con- involve experimentation gratuitous stitutional as is as it unwar- cannot be sure consequences ranted. We that its would not be unfortunate. Hughes,
Mr. Chief Justice concurring: With I respect agree to the merits with the opinion of and in the affirmance of Justice judg- Roberts Mr. ,as as modified. With to respect point juris- ment I what agree diction with is said in the opinion of Mr. as to discuss the National Justice Roberts Relations Act being privilege Labor of a citizen of the I am States, but not satisfied that the record supports resting jurisdiction adequately upon that I in ground. matter, As that concur the opinion of Stone. Justice Mr. McReynolds, dissenting:
Mr. Justice opinion I am of that the decree of the Circuit Court be Appeals should reversed" and the cause remanded to Court the District with instructions to dismiss the bill. I disclosed, In the circumstances conclude that the Dis- Court should have trict refused interfere by injunction the essential the municipality with to control parks own and streets. Wise management its of such affairs, generally -least, local intimate at beyond of federal competency courts, essays in -that direc- avoided. tion should to assert ample opportunity
There orderly through proceeding their claims an courts authoritatively interpret her laws empowered the state questions. of federal respect final here review Butler, dissenting: Mr. Justice I challenged am of ordinance is not opinion it on does differ face; principle void its ordinance, applied this upheld the Boston Mr. Davis v. through Justice Court, White, speaking Massachusetts, 167 U. S. Judi 43, affirming Supreme Massachusetts, through Mr. speaking cial Court of Justice Davis, in Commonwealth 510; Mass. Holmes, decree of the Circuit Court of N. E. *31 reversed. should be Appeals v. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPER STATES
UNITED INC. ATIVE, et al.* 24, 25, 5, Argued April 1939. Decided June 1939. No. Agriculture and Noyes, Commissioner 826, *Together with No. Royal Co-operative, York, v. Rock New the State Markets Cooperative Dairymen’s League Assn., Inc. al.; 827, Inc. et No. Metropolitan al.; Co Co-operative, Inc. et and No. Royal Rock Royal Agency, v. Rock Bargaining Inc. operative Producers Milk Court al., from the District Co-operative, Inc. et appeals on also District of New the Northern of the United States York.