De Veau v. Braisted

1960-06-06

Headline: State law limiting union fundraising by officers with felony records is upheld, allowing New York to block dues collection and curtail certain officers’ roles while fighting waterfront corruption reforms.

Holding: The Court upheld New York’s §8, ruling the state may bar unions from collecting dues when an officer has an unpardoned felony conviction, finding no conflict with federal labor laws and no constitutional defect.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to bar convicted felons from holding union office in targeted industries.
Permits states to block unions from collecting dues when officers have disqualifying convictions.
Limits federal preemption where Congress explicitly supported state reform and implementing laws.

Topics: labor unions, state labor rules, federal vs state labor rules, waterfront corruption

Summary

Background

A longshore union officer who had pleaded guilty to grand larceny in 1920 served as Secretary-Treasurer of a local that collected dues from licensed waterfront workers. New York’s Waterfront Commission Act §8 forbids collecting dues for a union if any officer has a felony conviction unless the officer is pardoned or has a certificate of good conduct. The local’s ability to collect dues was threatened, the officer was suspended, and the officer sued to have §8 declared unconstitutional. State courts sustained the law and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether §8 conflicts with federal labor law, violates due process, or is an unlawful punishment. The majority stressed that New York and New Jersey presented their reform plan to Congress, which approved the bi-state compact and explicitly authorized implementing state measures. The Court found no federal preemption: Congress had investigated waterfront crime and had not disapproved such state steps, and the 1959 federal labor law did not displace state authority and even included similar federal restrictions. On due process the Court accepted the factual finding of severe waterfront corruption and concluded the state’s disqualification was a reasonable, regulatory response. The majority held §8 is not a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law.

Real world impact

The decision lets states adopt and enforce narrow rules excluding convicted felons from certain union offices in industries where corruption was shown. It preserves some state power to set qualifications tied to public‑interest regulation and confirms that Congress’s explicit approval can limit claims of federal preemption.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the decision conflicts with prior cases protecting employees’ choice of representatives and that the federal labor acts—especially the 1959 law—show Congress intended federal standards to govern qualifications for union officers. The dissent would have reversed under the Supremacy Clause.