Taggart v. Weinacker's, Inc.
Headline: Court declines to decide whether union picketing on a narrow private sidewalk is protected, dismissing review and leaving a state injunction in place that limits picketers at the store entrance.
Holding: The Court dismissed its review as improvidently granted, declined to decide whether the union had a First Amendment right to picket on the private sidewalk, and left the state injunction restricting picketing in place.
- Leaves the state injunction in place against picketing on the store’s sidewalk.
- Limits the union’s immediate ability to picket at that narrow store entrance.
- Does not settle national rules on picketing or federal preemption by the NLRB.
Summary
Background
Union members began picketing a retail grocery and drug business. The state court quickly issued and then kept a temporary injunction barring trespass and interference with the store’s ingress and egress. While the case was on appeal, the original operator stopped running the store and leased space to other retailers, but the owner kept the building and an office. The picketing had moved from public sidewalks to a narrow sidewalk owned by the store, only 4 to 5.5 feet wide, right by the store door.
Reasoning
The Court was asked to decide whether the union had a First Amendment right to picket under these facts and whether state action was pre-empted by federal labor law. The majority said the record was obscure, the key finding that picketing obstructed customers rested on the owner’s affidavits alone, and only a tiny remnant of the original controversy remained. The petition for review was therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. The Court did not decide the broader First Amendment or federal preemption questions.
Real world impact
Because the Court dismissed review, the state injunction remains in effect against the picketing on the store’s sidewalk. The decision does not settle national rules about picketing, trespass, or when federal labor law displaces state remedies. The ruling rests on narrow physical facts and an inadequate record, so its effects are limited and subject to change in later cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices would have held the case pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Board under prior precedent; the Chief Justice concurred in dismissing review but rejected the idea of broad preemption for state trespass remedies.
Opinions in this case:
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?