Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board
301 U.S. 103, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 1192, 57 S. Ct. 650 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act's prohibitions against unfair labor practices are constitutional as applied to the editorial employees of a news agency engaged in interstate commerce, and this application does not abridge the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- The Associated Press (AP) is a cooperative organization that gathers news from around the world and distributes it to its member newspapers across the United States and internationally.
- Morris Watson was employed as an editorial employee in AP's New York office, where his responsibilities included rewriting and editing news copy for transmission.
- Watson was an active and prominent member of the American Newspaper Guild, a labor organization for newspaper employees.
- AP executives objected to Watson's Guild activities.
- In October 1935, the Associated Press discharged Watson from his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Newspaper Guild filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of Morris Watson.
- The NLRB served a complaint on the Associated Press (AP), alleging unfair labor practices affecting commerce.
- Following a hearing, an NLRB trial examiner found against AP and recommended an order requiring Watson's reinstatement.
- The NLRB adopted the examiner's findings and issued a cease-and-desist order against AP, mandating Watson's reinstatement with back pay.
- AP refused to comply with the Board's order.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce its order.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition and decreed enforcement of the NLRB's order.
- The Associated Press (petitioner) was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act, by prohibiting an interstate news agency from discharging an editorial employee for union activities, unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Roberts
No, the National Labor Relations Act as applied here does not abridge the freedom of the press. The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws that apply to all other businesses. The NLRA does not compel the Associated Press to employ anyone incompetent or biased; it only prohibits discharging an employee for the specific reason of union activity. The Board's order does not regulate the content of the news or AP's editorial policies, as AP remains free to discharge any employee who fails to comply with its standards of impartiality for any reason other than to discourage union membership. Furthermore, AP's activities constitute interstate commerce, and a labor dispute among its editorial staff would directly burden or obstruct that commerce, bringing it within Congress's regulatory power.
Dissenting - Justice Sutherland
Yes, the application of the National Labor Relations Act in this case unconstitutionally abridges the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press necessarily includes the right of a publisher to exercise uncensored judgment in the employment and discharge of the editorial staff who shape the news. Forcing a news agency to retain an employee whose strong union loyalties could potentially lead to biased reporting endangers the organization's ability to provide fair and impartial news. To protect its integrity, a news publisher must be free from any legislative coercion regarding its editorial workforce, and should not be required to wait for a concrete instance of bias before acting to prevent it.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark case affirming that news organizations are subject to general, non-discriminatory economic and labor regulations without violating the First Amendment. It established the principle that freedom of the press does not create a blanket immunity from laws that apply to all other commercial enterprises. The ruling prevented the press from becoming a constitutionally-protected class of employer, ensuring that its employees enjoy the same labor rights as workers in other industries. This precedent continues to influence cases where general laws intersect with First Amendment activities, confirming that the press clause primarily protects against content-based regulation, not general business law.
