OSMAN ET AL. v. DOUDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 12.
Decided June 5, 1950.
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. 846-847.
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. 848.
Victor Rabinowitz and Samuel A. Neuberger for appellants.
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, decided May 8, 1950, 339 U.S. 382 . 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:
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 [339 U.S. 846, 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