Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Property

424 U.S. 507 (1976)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyLabor lawFirst AmendmentShopping centersprivate propertyshopping centerlabor picketingSection 7

Facts

Scott Hudgens owned the North DeKalb Shopping Center, a privately owned enclosed shopping mall in Georgia containing 60 retail stores, including a Butler Shoe store. During a strike by Butler warehouse employees, four strikers entered the mall carrying signs stating that the Butler Shoe warehouse was on strike and picketed immediately outside the Butler store. The shopping center manager told them they could not picket in the mall or parking lot and threatened them with arrest for trespass if they did not leave. The union then filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging interference with rights protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Issue

When union members peacefully engage in primary picketing inside a privately owned shopping center and the owner threatens them with trespass arrest, are the parties' rights determined by the First Amendment, by the National Labor Relations Act, or by some combination of both? More specifically, did the pickets have a First Amendment right to picket inside the shopping center?

Rule

The constitutional guarantee of free expression restrains only governmental action and has no part to play in a case involving peaceful labor picketing within a privately owned shopping center. In such cases, the parties' rights and liabilities depend exclusively on the National Labor Relations Act, under which the NLRB must accommodate Section 7 rights and private property rights with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, workers employed by Desert Lantern Furnishings are on a lawful strike against the company’s regional distribution center. To publicize the strike, several workers walk peacefully inside a privately owned indoor retail arcade leased to many stores, including a Desert Lantern outlet, and the arcade owner orders them to leave or face trespass charges.

If the workers file an unfair labor practice charge, which framework should govern the dispute?

Explanation. The majority held that the constitutional guarantee of free expression restrains governmental action, not a private shopping-center-type owner, so the First Amendment has no part to play in this kind of case. The parties’ rights and liabilities depend exclusively on the NLRA, and the Board must seek a proper accommodation between Section 7 rights and private property rights.