Connally v. General Construction Co.
Headline: Court blocks enforcement of Oklahoma law requiring contractors to pay the 'current per diem wage' as unconstitutionally vague, preventing criminal penalties for contractors and workers until the state sets clearer wage standards.
Holding: The Court held that Oklahoma’s statute requiring payment of the "current per diem wage in the locality" is unconstitutionally vague and affirmed the court order blocking prosecutions under that law.
- Stops criminal prosecutions under the statute as written.
- Protects contractors from cumulative fines and jail time based on unclear wage rules.
- Pushes the state to define clear wage areas and rates before enforcement.
Summary
Background
A construction company contracted with the State of Oklahoma to build bridges and hired laborers at agreed daily wages. The state Labor Commissioner investigated and said the company paid less than the "current per diem wage in the locality," threatening criminal prosecution under two state statutes that impose fines and jail time for each day of noncompliance.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the law gave people a clear idea of what conduct would be criminal. It held that the phrase "current rate of per diem wages" and the word "locality" are too uncertain to tell employers what wage must be paid or what geographic area counts. Because the statute could cover many different amounts and undefined areas, it failed the basic requirement that a criminal law be reasonably clear, and thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fair process. The court therefore affirmed the order blocking enforcement.
Real world impact
The decision prevents the threatened prosecutions under the statute as written and protects the company from accumulating daily fines and jail sentences based on the statute’s unclear terms. It also signals that the state must adopt clearer rules — such as a specific method for measuring local wages or defined geographic boundaries — before imposing criminal penalties.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Holmes and Brandeis agreed with the result on narrower grounds, finding the company was not shown to be violating the statute by the local wage information available.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?