Section 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61
Stat. 146, 29 U.S.C. § 159(h), pertaining to "non-Communist"
affidavits, is valid under the Federal Constitution.
American
Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.
S. 382. Pp.
339 U. S.
848-847.
Affirmed.
In a suit brought by the appellants to enjoin the appellee from
enforcing the provisions of § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U.S.C. § 159(h), a three-judge
District Court dismissed the complaint on the merits. On direct
appeal to this Court,
affirmed, p.
339 U. S.
848.
PER CURIAM.
This case was heretofore held for, and presents the same issues
involved in,
American Communications Association v. Douds
and
United Steelworkers of America v. Labor Board,
339 U. S. 382
(1950). In these cases, the Court upheld the constitutionality of §
9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 146, 29 U.S.C.Supp.
III, §§ 141, 159(h), which provides:
"No investigation shall be made by the [National Labor
Relations] Board of any question affecting
Page 339 U. S. 847
commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a
labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, no
petition under subsection (e)(1) of this section shall be
entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge
made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 160 of
this title, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit
executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month
period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers
of any national or international labor organization of which it is
an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the
Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not
believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization
that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States
Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional
methods."
With regard to that part of the section which is concerned with
membership in, or affiliation with, the Communist Party, the Court
holds the requirement to be constitutional. MR. JUSTICE BLACK
dissents for reasons stated in his dissent in
American
Communications Association CIO v. Douds, supra.
With regard to the constitutionality of other relevant parts of
the section, the Court is equally divided. MR. JUSTICE MINTON joins
in the views expressed by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, who was joined by MR.
JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE BURTON in the cases above cited. MR.
JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, and MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
adhere to their opinions in those cases. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins
the dissenting opinions of MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, and MR. JUSTICE JACKSON insofar as they hold
unconstitutional the
Page 339 U. S. 848
portion of the oath dealing with beliefs, and, being of the view
that provisions of the oath are not separable, votes to reverse. He
therefore does not find it necessary to reach the question of the
constitutionality of the other part of the oath. The judgment of
the District Court is therefore
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.