Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentContracts ClauseLabor Lawright-to-work lawsunion membership

Facts

North Carolina enacted a statute and Nebraska adopted a constitutional amendment providing that no person could be denied employment because he is or is not a member of a labor organization. The laws also forbade employers from making agreements obligating themselves to exclude persons from employment because of union membership or nonmembership. In Nebraska, unions sought equitable and declaratory relief after employers refused union requests to discharge employees who had not retained union membership. In North Carolina, criminal proceedings were brought alleging that the employer and union officers had entered into an agreement made unlawful by the statute.

Issue

Do state laws requiring equal employment opportunity for union and non-union workers, and prohibiting contracts that require employment discrimination based on union status, violate the First Amendment, the Contracts Clause, or the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule

The Constitution does not confer on union members a right to exclude non-union workers from employment. A state may, consistent with due process and equal protection, prohibit employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of union membership or nonmembership and may likewise forbid contracts that would accomplish such prohibited discrimination. The Due Process Clause does not bar states from legislating against business and industrial practices they regard as injurious to the public welfare unless some specific federal constitutional prohibition or valid federal law is violated.

🔒

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.

Oregon enacts a statute providing that no employer in Portland may refuse to hire, discharge, or retain a person because the person is or is not a member of a labor organization. The law also forbids agreements requiring an employer to staff jobs only with union members. A local union challenges the law after a contractor declines to honor the union's demand that several nonmembers be removed from a project.

Under the majority's reasoning, the union's strongest constitutional argument is most likely to fail because the statute primarily regulates:

Explanation. The majority held that such laws do not target expression. They require equal employment opportunities for union and non-union workers and forbid employers, alone or with unions, from restricting jobs to union members. Because the law regulates discriminatory employment conduct and contracts producing that conduct, not speech, assembly, or petition, a First Amendment challenge fails. (Derived from Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co. (n.d.).)