Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

In re Debs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source . Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "In re Debs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(November 2021)
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations . Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
1895 United States Supreme Court case
In re Debs
Argued March 25–26, 1895
Decided May 27, 1895
Full case nameIn re Eugene V. Debs, Petitioner
Citations158 U.S. 564 (more )
15 S. Ct. 900; 39 L. Ed. 1092; 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2279
Holding
The court ruled that the government had a right to regulate interstate commerce and ensure the operations of the Postal Service, along with a responsibility to "ensure the general welfare of the public."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Howell E. Jackson · Edward D. White
Case opinion
MajorityBrewer, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Commerce Clause

In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), was a labor law case of the United States Supreme Court, which upheld a contempt of court conviction against Eugene V. Debs. Debs had the American Railway Union continue its 1894 Pullman Strike in violation of a federal injunction ordering labor unions back to work. The Supreme Court held that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority includes the ability to regulate the labor conditions of railways.

Background

[edit ]

Eugene V. Debs, president of the American Railway Union, had been involved in the Pullman Strike earlier in 1894 and challenged the federal injunction ordering the strikers back to work where they would face being fired. The injunction had been issued because of the violent nature of the strike. However, Debs refused to end the strike and was subsequently cited for contempt of court; he appealed the decision to the courts.

The main question being debated was whether the federal government had a right to issue the injunction, which dealt with both interstate and intrastate commerce and shipping on rail cars.

Judgment

[edit ]
The Fuller Court
The Fuller Court

Justice David Josiah Brewer held, for a unanimous court, in favor of the U.S. government. Joined by Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justices Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr., Howell Edmunds Jackson, and Edward Douglass White, the court ruled that the government had a right to regulate interstate commerce and ensure the operations of the Postal Service, along with a responsibility to "ensure the general welfare of the public." The decision slowed the momentum of labor unions. Debs would go on to lose another Supreme Court case in Debs v. United States .

Significance

[edit ]

In Loewe v. Lawlor the Supreme Court stated that unions were in fact potentially liable for antitrust violations. In response, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 to take unions out of antitrust law.

See also

[edit ]

Notes

[edit ]

References

[edit ]
  • Papke, David Ray. (1999) The Pullman Case: The Clash of Labor and Capital in Industrial America. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas ISBN 0-7006-0954-7
[edit ]
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /