Thomas v. Collins
323 U.S. 516 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law requiring labor union organizers to register with the state and obtain a license before soliciting members is an unconstitutional prior restraint on the rights of free speech and free assembly when applied to an individual delivering a public speech.
Facts:
- R.J. Thomas, president of the U.A.W. union and a C.I.O. vice president, traveled to Texas for the sole purpose of addressing a mass meeting of oil workers.
- The meeting was part of a campaign by the Oil Workers Industrial Union (O.W.I.U.) to organize employees at a Humble Oil & Refining Company plant.
- On September 23, 1943, just hours before the scheduled speech, Thomas was served with a temporary restraining order issued under a Texas statute.
- The order prohibited Thomas from soliciting members for any C.I.O.-affiliated union without first obtaining an organizer's card from the Texas Secretary of State.
- Thomas proceeded to address the peaceful assembly of approximately 300 workers.
- During his speech, Thomas lauded the principles of unionism, made a general appeal to non-union members in the audience to join the local union, and specifically solicited a non-union worker named Pat O'Sullivan to become a member.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas petitioned the District Court of Travis County for a temporary restraining order to prevent R.J. Thomas from soliciting union members without an organizer's card.
- The District Court issued the restraining order ex parte.
- After Thomas's speech, the state filed a motion for contempt against him for violating the order.
- The District Court held Thomas in contempt, fining him $100 and sentencing him to three days in jail.
- Thomas petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
- The Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court, denied the petition and upheld the contempt conviction.
- Thomas appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 a Texas law requiring paid labor union organizers to obtain an organizer's card before soliciting memberships violate the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free assembly when applied to an organizer who, during a public speech, invited the audience generally and one individual specifically to join a union?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rutledge
Yes, the Texas law as applied in this case violates the First Amendment. The law imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the rights of free speech and free assembly by requiring registration as a precondition for making a public speech that includes solicitation. The Court applied the 'clear and present danger' test, finding that any restriction on fundamental First Amendment liberties must be justified by a grave and imminent public danger, not a mere rational basis. The act of soliciting union membership in this context is inseparable from the broader discussion of labor issues and advocacy of unionism; to prohibit the solicitation is to effectively prohibit the speech itself. The state failed to demonstrate any clear and present danger that would justify such a significant intrusion on Thomas's rights to speak freely and the workers' rights to peaceably assemble and hear him.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes. This opinion concurs with the majority, emphasizing that the principle of unfettered speech applies equally to employers and employees. While the use of economic power to coerce action is not protected speech, the mere act of speaking on any side of a labor issue is protected by the First Amendment. As long as a person does no more than speak, they have the same unfettered right, regardless of their position.
Concurring - Justice Jackson
Yes. This opinion concurs, drawing a distinction between the state's power to regulate a vocation and its power to regulate speech. While a state can license vocations like law or medicine to protect the public, it cannot license speech to protect the public from 'false doctrine.' Thomas's activity was making a public speech, a protected right, not practicing the vocation of a solicitor in a way that the state could regulate through licensing. Associating protected speech with a regulatable activity like 'solicitation' cannot be used to bring the speech itself under official control.
Dissenting - Justice Roberts
No. The Texas statute does not violate the First Amendment. The law is a reasonable regulation of a business activity, not a restriction on free speech. The statute does not prohibit speech or assembly; it merely requires paid organizers to identify themselves, similar to regulations for lawyers, insurance agents, and other professionals. The dissent argues that Thomas's action was a business transaction—soliciting for a business association for pecuniary consideration—which the state has a legitimate police power interest in regulating. The requirement of obtaining an organizer's card is a minimal burden and does not unconstitutionally abridge any civil rights.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'preferred position' of First Amendment freedoms, applying the stringent 'clear and present danger' test to a state regulation of labor organizing activities. By classifying the solicitation of union members during a speech as protected speech rather than a regulatable commercial transaction, the Court significantly limited the states' ability to impose licensing or registration requirements on union organizers. The ruling creates a strong precedent that distinguishes labor advocacy from other professional solicitations, thereby providing robust constitutional protection for union organizing efforts and public discussion of labor disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Thomas v. Collins