Thornhill v. Alabama

Supreme Court of the United States · 1940 · Labor Law

310 U.S. 88 (1940)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor LawpicketingFirst Amendmentlabor picketingfreedom of speechfreedom of pressFourteenth Amendmentfacial challenge

Facts

Byron Thornhill was convicted under an Alabama statute that made it a misdemeanor, without just cause or legal excuse, to go near or loiter about a business to influence others not to deal with it, or to picket a business to hinder or interfere with it. The evidence showed that during a strike at the Brown Wood Preserving Company, Thornhill was on a picket line with other men at the plant. When a nonunion worker reported to the plant, Thornhill peacefully told him that they were on strike and did not want anybody to go there to work; there were no threats, harsh words, or violence. Thornhill challenged the statute as violating rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and petition.

Issue

Whether Alabama Code § 3448, which broadly prohibited loitering and picketing near a lawful business for the purpose of influencing others or interfering with the business, violated the freedom of speech and press protected against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether the statute was invalid on its face because it swept within its scope peaceful public discussion of labor disputes.

Rule

Freedom of speech and of the press, protected against state abridgment by the Fourteenth Amendment, includes at least the liberty publicly and truthfully to discuss matters of public concern, including the facts of a labor dispute, without prior restraint or subsequent punishment. A state may not impose sweeping penal restrictions that encompass peaceful and truthful discussion of such matters; abridgment is justified only where a clear danger of substantive evils arises under circumstances affording no opportunity to test ideas through public discussion. When a speech-restricting statute broadly reaches protected expression, it is judged on its face rather than by narrowing it through the particular evidence in the case.

🔒

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.

Ohio makes it a misdemeanor for any person, without legal excuse, to stand near a lawful business for the purpose of persuading others not to work there or patronize it, or to picket the business to interfere with its operations. In Cleveland, Lena Ortiz quietly hands out accurate leaflets outside a textile mill describing an ongoing wage dispute and urging the public not to shop there.

If Lena challenges the statute after her conviction, what is the strongest constitutional argument under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that peaceful and truthful discussion of labor disputes involves matters of public concern and is protected by the freedom of speech and press. A statute is invalid on its face when it sweeps in virtually every practicable means of publicizing the facts of a labor dispute near the business, rather than targeting only specific serious dangers.