*1 NATIONAL ALLIANCE THE POLISH OF UNITED OF NORTH STATES AMERICA v. NATIONAL LABOR BOARD. RELATIONS Argued January 11, 12, No. 226. 1944. Decided June Harris, whom Mr. Casimir E. Mr. Ewart Midowicz brief, petitioner. was on the for Biddle, with
Attorney General whom Solicitor General Stern, Rockwell, L. Alvin Fahy, Messrs. Robert J. Bonner, Weyand Ruth on Frank and Miss were the brief, respondent. opinion delivered Mr. Justice Frankfurter Court. Board, having found
The National Labor Relations petitioner, of the National Rela- violation engaged tions had Act, unfair labor practices, issued *2 against an cessation it. order of L. R. 1375. On N. B. for a for petition a and of the Board cross-petition review enforcement, the Appeals Circuit Court of for the Seventh the Circuit order. 2d sustained 136 F. 175. Of the here, numerous issues before that two only court open are the us importance grant which led certiorari. questions the (1) U. S. 725. are these: view petitioner’s activities, is the conduct found by the unfair labor constitute within scope if Act; National Relations proscribed conduct, has it exceeded its power regulate among States? several a
The Polish National Alliance is fraternal benefit society death, and accident benefits providing disability, Incorporated to its members their beneficiaries. Illinois, organized 1,817 lodges under the laws of it is into through twenty-seven States, District scattered Columbia, of Manitoba, Province Canada. As organization in Amer- “largest fraternal the world of it descent,” icans of Polish had outstanding, 272,897 insurance benefit certificates with a face value of nearly $160,000,000. Over of these were certificates 76% living held outside Illinois. At the end of persons year, petitioner’s $30,000,000, assets totalled about United States Govern- cash, States, real estate five bonds, foreign government bonds, ment bonds of various public political subdivisions, railroad, States and their bonds, and stocks. From its or- utility, industrial spent in 1880 the end of Alliance ganization until educational, charitable, for and fraternal $7,000,000 over During the same among period, its members. in “mortuary claims.” $38,000,000 over paid out in Chicago its home office directs from Petitioner organizers and field part-time 225 full and over staff traveling expenses are twenty-six whose agents borne by Alliance and who receive for commissions new memberships. Since its 1939 convention, Alliance has admitted no more “social members.” all Thereafter, applicants have been required to buy insurance certifi- cates providing types various of life, endowment, term coverage. policies typical loan, contain These cash surrender value, optional settlement, and dividend provisions. $10,000 advertising Petitioner spent over Georgia It during outside of Illinois employs credit company standing on the financial report character of the applicants, and reinsures substandard risks an Indiana company. lodges
Alliance organized are councils, into 190 160 of *3 which are outside the State of Illinois. The elect councils delegates to convention, the national and it turn elects the executive and administrative officers. Censor The appoints of an edi- ranking Alliance is its officer and he torial distributed publishes weekly paper staff which in 1941, published 6,857,556 copies members. Of the of living outside about to persons were mailed 80% Illinois. Alliance and
This of summary of the shows amply pursuit for their methods facilities many woven acrossi web money-making of transactions against state lines. An strike effective all from it radiating Chicago but enterprise, centered certainly matter country, practical over the would as a com- of transmission and burden obstruct the means disrup- Stoppage or munication these state lines. across interruptions in Chicago tion the work in involves bills, notices, Illinois, steady stream, into out commissions, making policies, payments of adver- policies, on the insertion and circulation loans material over tising newspapers, and its dissemination interruptions the radio. effect of such on commerce is unmistakable. The load of interstate communication
and transportation services is lessened, necessary cash interstate business becomes in- unavailable, business, terstate, of newspapers and radio stations suffer. Nor is all. Alliance, it appears, plays a credit role inter- state industries, railroads, and other public utilities. 1941, it acquired securities in amount in $11,- an excess 000,000, and sold or redeemed costing securities more than $7,500,000. Financial magnitude transactions of this can- not be impeded even temporarily without an affecting to extent not negligible enterprises the interstate in which large assets of Alliance are invested. That such are the substantial effects on interstate dislo- cating practices by labor insurance companies, was established before the Labor Board in at least thirteen comparable practical situations.1 The justification of such a conclusion has not heretofore been challenged. Considerations like these led the Board to find that peti- practices tioner’s “have a close, intimate, and substan- tial trade, relation to traffic, commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce,” and were therefore “unfair affecting labor commerce within the 1 Matter of John Hancock Life Co., Mutual Insurance 26 N. L. It. B. 1024; Matter of Life Virginia, Insurance Co. of 29 N. L. R. B. 246; Matter of Life Virginia, Insurance Co. L. R. B. N. *4 Supreme Liberty Matter of Co., 94; Life Insurance 32 N. L. R. B. Matter of Life Virginia, 20; Insurance Co. of 38 Mat N. L. R. B. 1177; ter of Colonial Life America, Insurance Co. of 42 N. L. B.R. Metropolitan Matter of Life Co., 962; Insurance 43 N. L. R. B. 430; Matter of Prudential Insurance Co. America, 46 L. B. N. R. 825; Matter of Association, Northwestern Mutual Fire 46 R. B. N. L. Peoples Life Washington, C., Matter of Insurance Co. of L. D. 46 N. 1115; B. America, R. Matter Prudential Insurance Co. of 47 N. L. 1103; R. B. Matter of L. America, Prudential Insurance Co. 49 N. 450; Casualty Tennessee, R. B. Matter of Life and Insurance Co. of America, 53 v. Bank N. L. R. B. 1196. See also 130 624, F. 2d 626.
647 meaning (7)/’ of Section 2 such, prohibited and as 10 Wagner § Act.
By Act, order to com protect interstate merce disputes from adverse of labor under effects having taken to regulate consequences all conduct it constitutionally regulate. can Labor Board v. Laughlin Jones & Corp., 1, 301 U. 31; S. Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. 601, negligible S. 607. excep With tions, Congress regulate did not exercise com its prior merce its enactment 1887 of the Interstate Act. Commerce 24 C. 1 379,49 seq. § Stat. U. S. el Since that time it has frequently chosen, Large as Statutes at abundantly prove, to con only part of what it regulate stitutionally can regulate. Again, half dozen enact ments, other than the National Labor Act, Relations are sufficient aspects to illustrate that when it bring wants to of commerce within sweep the full its au constitutional thority, only manifests its purpose by regulating not “affect,” “commerce” but which “interrupt,” also matters or “promote” See, interstate commerce. for example, Act 18, June 1934, 2, 979, Bi 420a; § 48 Stat. 18 U. C.S. § tuminous Coal 50 Act, 72, 83, § Stat. 15 C. 4-A, U. S. 834; Act, (3), § Civil Aeronautics 1 52 973, 977, § Stat. 49 401 (3); U. S. C. Federal § Employers’ Liability Act, 1, amended, 2) § as 53 (part 1404, 51; Stat. 45 U. § S. C. Transportation ofAct (b) 456, § 307 (3), Stat. 471; Valley Tennessee Authority Act, 31,§ Stat. C. range U. S. 831dd. so describing the control, Congress indulging stylistic preferences; mediating
it is between federal and authorities, state deciding what matters are be taken over central Government what to be left the States. United Darby, v. 312 U. S. Kirschbaum Co. Wal ling, 316 S. And U. so unlike fed Act, some regulatory eral Federal measures, see Trade Comm’n v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. Kirschbaum 349, 351; Co. v. Wal- *5 regulated 522-523, Congress explicitly
ling, supra, at in commerce goods or interstate not transactions to be deemed might which isolation be but activities interlacings but of business across state merely local Wagner adversely By affect such commerce. lines prevent prac- Act, Congress gave authority the Board to burdening or ob- “tending dispute to lead to a labor tices 2 (7) or structing commerce the free flow of commerce.” § (49 Act of the National Labor Relations Stat. left to the (7)). therefore U. S. C. would proscribed practices Board to ascertain whether when adversely situations affect commerce particular of the judged by the full reach constitutional by may or no be deemed Congress. practices Whether Congress to affect interstate be confining judgment quantitative determined to the immediately Ap- effect before the Board. fact judgment is the that the sit- propriate immediate many throughout others representative uation is if the total incidence of which left country, may unchecked far-reaching well become its harm to commerce. Labor Fainblatt, at supra, 607-608. enough said to indicate ground We have for our that the Board unjustified conclusion was not in finding the unfair labor found it would affect And the commerce. undoubted fact that Alliance pro- among Americans of motes, descent, Polish in, interest to, contributions that Poland devotion has made to does not subordinate its civilization business activities insignificance. Accordingly, the Board could find that fraternal activities do not withdraw Alli- cultural and amenability Wagner Act. from ance presents we have before us aspect, In this the case authority relation of federal problem new wholly insurance long series of insurance. seventy- than for more come to this Court that have cases *6 649 five from Paul years, Virginia, 8 Wall. New 168, to York Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U. 495, Life S. invariably have involved some exercise of state power resisted, most instances, on the claim that it was im forbidden pliedly by the Commerce Clause. Such was the context in which this Court again decided again making that the of a contract of insurance is not inter state commerce and that, since the business of insurance effect a congeries is of contracts, the may, for taxing and regulate diverse other purposes, making the contracts the insurance business from free the limitations imposed upon state action the Com merce questions Clause. Constitutional that look alike are altogether often different call for different answers they bring play provisions because into different of the or power Constitution different exertions of it. under Thus, regulation federal does not preclude state taxation not preclude regulation. and state taxation does federal Co., for Compare, example, Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Adkins, 260 U. S. Sunshine Coal Co. v. 245, 310 U. S. 381.
We have, presented now time therefore, the first not an power state but of national exercise relation the insurance And so the ultimate question business. in view relation the whether, of the between the before the operation insurance business us and lines, forces economic across state the Constitution denies power interplay the of the say economic forces is such insurance business and those among . . . Commerce power regulate “to regulate it the States” carries with several legislation. regulated relevant conduct here interacting areas process adjusting authority national over commerce has been re- and state very beginning from flected hundreds of cases issues has plagued same kind of history. Precisely our 650 great two English-speaking federations, the consti
tutions of which similarly distribute legislative power over business between central and govern subordinate ments. See British North America Act, 1867, Viet., 30 & 31 c. Report (Canadian) Royal of the Commission on Relations, Dominion-Provincial c. II, IV; Act, § 51 of Constitutional Bk. the Australia Vict., (Australian) c. Report & (1929) c. XIV. *7 Royal Constitution, Commission on the federal consti in are difficulties inherent a These system. tutional wiped not have society
The modem interpenetrations of upon inroads out to make state lines. It is not for us mainte- to our by indifference system federal either mod- unifying forces regard nance or for the excessive no that prove reasoning may ern technology. Scholastic State, single activity is the boundaries of isolated within by power legislative justify absorption but that cannot hand, other activity. On the every the United States over Court is that the old admonition never becomes stale with and not legal power concerned with the bounds Congress. When by exercise the bounds of wisdom its among the enterprise an affects the conduct of to' deter- not be judgment, is matter practical practical The of this by exercise mined abstract notions. very primarily entrusts judgment the Constitution control subject the latter’s Congress, to the largely Con- given power was thus the electorate. Great gress: legislation thereby power power complex society. of a needs passing judgment upon the given to though far-reaching power confined was Strictly Congress determining whether the this Court: that the judgment exceeded limits reason for allowable hold which it has To that could not exercised. men of question deem here to affect what deem commerce, affairs call and to them practical would merely by gossamer such commerce related threads would ties, judgment not solid be to disrespect to men who open have the constitutional power legislate responsibility to for the Nation.
Judgment affirmed. Justice Robeets took no part Me. in the consideration disposition or of this case.
Me. Justice Black, concurring: National Relations Act does not vest courts review the evidence presented to the Labor independent make findings of fact. 29 U. S. C. (e). Therefore the propriety of the Board’s order in this case must be considered on the basis of the facts the Board found.
The Board jurisdiction did exercise and enter its order on a finding petitioner’s fact insurance activ- ities affected commerce types interstate busi- ness other than its own. On this fact issue it made no finding at Its finding all. was that the petitioner, being *8 in “engaged “engaged the business,” insurance was in meaning commerce within the Act.” This ultimate finding of fact rested on detailed subordinate findings which widespread revealed the interstate activities of the in carrying on its petitioner insurance As business. opinion points out, Court’s these insurance in- “steady stream, a into and Illinois, volved out bills, notices, commissions, and policies, payments making policies, on loans insertion circulation in advertising material and its newspapers, dissemina- on Only tion the radio.” the basis of the ultimate over itself petitioner “engaged that was commerce” finding the Board make the essential further that finding peti- did bargain employees its collectively tioner’s refusal to intimate, and substantial relation com- “close, had 652 among
mere© several States” and tended “to lead to disputes labor burdening and obstructing commerce.” law As conclusion of the Board stated that petitioner’s practices unfair labor constituted “unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning 2 of Section (6) (7) of the Act.” (6) Section 2 the term defines “trade, “commerce” to mean traffic . . 2 (7) the term “affecting defines commerce” mean either “in “burdening commerce” or or obstructing commerce.” 450; 29 TJ. Stat. S. C. and (7). From the language definitions, of these and the findings Board’s described, apparent above that Board’s conclusion of law that “commerce” was “affected” petitioner’s upon previous labor rested unfair conclusion engaged insurance was petitioner’s fact business that, The Board concluded the insur commerce. since commerce, engaged petitioner’s itself was ance business bargain, thereby provoked, and the strike would refusal Associated Press v. Labor Compare affect commerce. Consolidated Edison Board, 103, 128-130 with 301 U. S. Board, 197, 219-224. 305 U. S. Co. v. regulation provide Congress1may doctrine that commerce, but interstate themselves of activities premise commerce, rests on “affecting” such may government the federal certain fact situations intrastate com local and purely regulation find that to in prevent injury “necessary proper” merce is Houston, T. Ry. & W. Co. v. E. commerce. terstate Liability Employers; Second States, 234 U. S. United Filburn, 317 Wickard v. Cases, 46-47; and see U. S. to particular doctrine applying this U. S. cautious, been has properly Court situations subjecting local findings clear before required *9 City Yonkers v. paramount regulation. federal It States, cases therein cited. United 320 U. S. regard principle to the upon has insisted “suitable whenever the power federal is exerted within what would otherwise be the domain justification of state power, of the exercise of the federal must clearly appear.” Id.; States, Florida United v. cf. 194, 211-212; 282 U. S. Phelps Dodge Board, v. Labor Corp. U. S. 196- Exchange Securities & Comm’n Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 92-95.
The Board not having petitioner’s found as a fact that life insurance business affected interstate activities of other businesses, the first whether issue is the Board’s findings that petitioner’s insurance were con ducted across state are I supported by lines evidence. think they are. This argued leads to the question, chiefly by both parties, “Is commerce, insurance when and, conducted subject across state federal lines, regulation as such under the Commerce Clause of the Con stitution?” For given the reasons opinions the Court’s in this case and United States v. South-Eastern Under Association, writers 533, I agree U. S. that the business of insurance subject is commerce, regulation to federal as such when conducted lines, across state and!
Board’s order was proper. Douglas Murphy
Mr. Justice join and Mr. Justice opinion.