The respondents individual citizens, unincorporated labor organizations composed of such citizens and a mem- Page 501 bership corporation, brought suit in the United States District Court against the petitioners, the Mayor, the Director of Public Safety, and the Chief of Police of Jersey City, New Jersey, and the Board of Commissioners, the governing body of the city. Bugbee, , ; Hamilton v. The court below rightly omitted any such limitation from the decree, evidently because, as it declared, petitioners' acts infringed the due process clause, which guarantees to all persons freedom of speech and of assembly for any lawful purpose. The court further found that the petitioners, as officials, acting in reliance on the ordinance dealing with the subject, have adopted and enforced a deliberate policy of preventing the respondents, and their associates, from distributing circulars, leaflets, or handbills in Jersey City; that this has been done by policemen acting forcibly and violently; that the petitioners propose to continue to enforce the policy of such prevention; that the circulars and handbills, distribution of which has been prevented, were not offensive to public morals, and did not advocate unlawful conduct, but were germane to the purposes alleged in the bill, and that their distribution was being carried out in a way consistent with public order and without molestation of individuals or misuse or littering of the streets. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, it was pointed out, are confined to that limited class of interests growing out of the relationship between the citizen and the national government created by the Constitution and federal laws.
This process meant that the factory owners could not send in additional workers to continue the job. We think this is wrong. They contend that the court below erred in holding that the District Court had jurisdiction over all or some of the causes of action stated in the bill. That the phrase was used in this sense in the statute now under consideration was recognized in Carter v. Hague appealed to the which ruled against him and held that Hague's ban on political meetings violated the right to , and so the ordinances were void. If its restraint upon state action were to be extended more than is needful to protect relationships between the citizen and the national government, and if it were to be deemed to extend to those fundamental rights of person and property attached to citizenship by the common law and enactments of the states when the Amendment was adopted, such as were described in Corfield v. Similar findings were made with respect to the prevention of the distribution of placards.
Following the decision of the Slaughter-House Cases and before the later expansion by judicial decision of the content of the due process and equal protection clauses, there was little scope for the operation of this statute under the Fourteenth Amendment. The bill alleges, and the findings sustain the allegation, that the respondents had no other purpose than to inform citizens of Jersey City by speech, and by the written word, respecting matters growing out of national legislation, the constitutionality of which this court has sustained. The findings of fact negative the latter assumption. Of the fifty or more cases which have been brought to this Court since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in which state statutes have been assailed as violating the privileges and immunities clause, in only a single case was a statute held to infringe a privilege or immunity peculiar to citizenship of the United States. It is true that, if the various plaintiffs had brought actions at law for the redress of such wrongs, the amount necessary to jurisdiction under § 24 1 would have been determined by the sum claimed in good faith. The District Court made no findings of fact concerning such searches and seizures and granted no relief with respect to them. The respondents, individual citizens, unincorporated labor organizations composed of such citizens, and a membership corporation, brought suit in the United States District Court against the petitioners, the Mayor, the Director of Public Safety, and the Chief of Police of Jersey City, New Jersey, and the Board of Commissioners, the governing body of the city.
After trial upon the merits the District Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and a decree in favor of respondents. Whether the proposed unions were to be organized in industries which might be subject to the National Labor Relations Act or to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board does not appear. The jurisdiction of a district court was similarly sustained in Crane v. Have the poor fared best by participating in conventional electoral politics or by engaging in mass defiance and disruption? In the Slaughter-House Cases it was said, Wall. Lewis, who was a Republican, had initially supported Roosevelt for his first two terms, but later began to feel Democrat Roosevelt did not support labor unions, and if a Republican candidate were elected with the help of labor votes, the union would be rewarded. They omitted the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from their quotation. Freedom of speech and of assembly for any lawful purpose are rights of personal liberty secured to all persons, without regard to citizenship, by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Prior to the Civil War, there was confusion and debate as to the relation between United States citizenship and state citizenship. Upon that ground appeals to this Court to extend the clause beyond the limitation have uniformly been rejected, and even those basic privileges and immunities secured against federal infringement by the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause. And it directed that such proceedings should be prosecuted in the several district or circuit courts of the United States. The decree attempts to formulate the conditions under which respondents and their sympathizers may distribute such literature free of interference. This act declared that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, were citizens of the United States, and should have the same rights in every State to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property to the same extent as white citizens. The question is the same whether the right or privilege asserted is secured by the privileges and immunities clause or any other.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 24 14. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. There is no finding by either court below that any of respondents or any of those whose freedom of speech and assembly has been infringed are citizens of the United States, and we are referred to no part of the evidence in which their citizenship is mentioned or from which it can be inferred. . Hamill, all of Jersey City, N. This must be taken as legislative recognition that there are suits authorized by § 1 of the Act of 1871 which could be brought under § 24 14 after, as well as before, the amendment of 1875 without compliance with any requirement of jurisdictional amount, and that these at least must be deemed to include suits in which the subject matter is one incapable of valuation. Cruikshank, , 552, 553, 23 L.
New Jersey, , ; Maxwell v. Tiernan, , ; Duncan v. The right of the individual complainants to maintain it conferred by § 24 14 does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or nonexistence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. As the ordinance is void, the respondents are entitled to a decree so declaring and an injunction against its enforcement by the petitioners. The argument is that this section of the decree is so vague in its terms as to be impractical of enforcement or obedience. Johnson, , on the authority of Truax v.
In re Kemmler, 136 U. On the contrary, it extends and applies in the broadest terms to interferences with respondents in holding any lawful meeting and disseminating any lawful information by circular, leaflet, handbill and placard. By 1983, only twenty percent of American workers belonged to a union. Thirdly, they claim that the decree must be set aside because it exceeds the court's power and is impracticable of enforcement or of compliance. The courts cannot rewrite the ordinance, as the decree, in effect, does.
Such was the view of Justice Washington. If it be the part of wisdom to avoid unnecessary decision of constitutional questions, it would seem to be equally so to avoid the unnecessary creation of novel constitutional doctrine, inadequately supported by the record, in order to attain an and easily and certainly reached by following the beaten paths of constitutional decision. We think this paragraph unassailable. Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. In other respects the decree should be affirmed.