National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (301 U.S. 1)

From Wikisource
(Redirected from 301 U.S. 1)
Jump to: navigation, search


National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation by Charles Evans Hughes
Syllabus
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that declared that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (commonly known as the Wagner Act) was constitutional. It effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation, and greatly increased Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. — Excerpted from National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
McReynolds
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Wikipedia article

United States Supreme Court

301 U.S. 1

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD  v.  JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION

 Argued: Feb. 10, 11, 1937. --- Decided: April 12, 1937

[Syllabus from pages 1-5 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and J. Warren Madden, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Earl F. Reed, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 5-22 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

Notes[edit]

Case ...

No. 419, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., post, p. 22;
Nos. 420 and 421, National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., post, p. 49;
Nos. 422 and 423, National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., post, p. 58;
No. 365, Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, post, p. 103; and
No. 469, Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, post, p. 142,
which are known as the "Labor Board Cases," were disposed of in five separate opinions.


The dissenting opinion, post, p. 76, applies to Nos. 419, 420 and 421, and 422 and 423.

The dissenting opinion, post, p. 133, applies to No. 365.

The opinion in No. 469 was unanimous.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).