Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 40 - Demonstrations, Picketing, and First Amendment Theories

  • from Section B: Civil Liberties after 1937
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 1060-1115

  • Summary

    Cases involving strict regulation of political and religious demonstrations and the application of traditional doctrines to labor picketing led the Court to develop a rather robust law protecting such activities against regulation, at least when the demonstrations or picketing did not pose a significant threat of violence. The most important case, Hague v. CIO, invoked old-fashioned property law concepts to say that streets and parks had been historically “dedicated” to political and similar demonstrations, creating what came to be known as the “public forum” doctrine. And it held that the Norris-Laguardia Act limiting the power of federal courts (and similar statutes on the state level) to enjoin labor picketing did not violate the federal constitution, and then defined the scope of the Act expansivley to cover an effort by an organization of African Americans to force employers in Washington DC to hire more black workers. The decisions seen as a group fit reasonably well into the emerging theory of interest group pluralism, where the Constitution provided the grounds for political (and economic) combat.