Loewe v. Lawlor

Supreme Court of the United States · 1908 · Labor Law

208 U.S. 274 (1908)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor LawantitrustboycottsSherman Actinterstate commercesection 1section 7labor boycott

Facts

Plaintiffs were hat manufacturers in Danbury, Connecticut, whose business depended almost entirely on selling and shipping hats to dealers in other States. The complaint alleged that defendants, members of the United Hatters of North America and the American Federation of Labor, combined to force plaintiffs to unionize their factory by crippling production and boycotting plaintiffs' hats and the dealers and customers who handled them in multiple States. The alleged means included the concerted withdrawal of workers, threats and coercion directed at out-of-state wholesale dealers and their customers, circulars and newspaper publicity, and use of the union label to identify plaintiffs' hats for boycott. Plaintiffs alleged that these acts restrained and in many places destroyed their interstate trade and damaged their business and property.

Issue

Whether the facts alleged in the complaint, admitted by demurrer, stated a cause of action under § 7 of the Sherman Act. More specifically, the question was whether the alleged labor combination and boycott constituted a combination in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.

Rule

The Sherman Act reaches every contract, combination, or conspiracy that directly or necessarily operates to restrain interstate trade or commerce by essentially obstructing the free flow of commerce or restricting the liberty of a trader to engage in interstate business. The Act applies even where some means occur within a State, before transportation begins, or after transportation ends, and it applies regardless of whether the defendants themselves are engaged in interstate commerce or are labor organizations rather than capitalists.

🔒

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.

Blue Mesa Furnishings makes custom desks in New Mexico and ships nearly all of them to wholesalers in Arizona, Texas, and Colorado. A national carpenters' association, seeking to force Blue Mesa to adopt union-shop rules, directs local affiliates in those states to pressure wholesalers and their retail customers not to buy or resell Blue Mesa desks, threatening boycotts against anyone who continues dealing in them.

If Blue Mesa sues for treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Act, which is the strongest argument that its complaint states a claim?

Explanation. The majority treated a concerted boycott aimed at dealers and customers in multiple states as a direct restraint of interstate commerce. The Act applies where a combination essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce or restricts a trader's liberty to engage in interstate business, even if defendants are not themselves engaged in interstate commerce and even if some pressure is exerted after delivery.