¹ Leader, Sheldon, Freedom of Association: A Study in Labor Law and Political Theory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² This caricature is not far from Fink, Leon, “Labor, Liberty, and the Law: Trade Unionism and the Problem of the American Constitutional Order,” Journal of American History 74 (1987): 904–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fink sketches “an era of repressive conspiracy indictments followed by an era of equally demobilizing dependency on government by labor.” It is notable that, in this issue of the Journal of American History memorializing the bicentennial of the Constitution, the “American constitutional order” rather than “trade unionism” is the “problem.” For a recent overview of the literature, see Lambert, Josiah B., “If the Workers Took a Notion”: The Right to Strike and American Political Development (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2005), 16Google Scholar; and Dubofsky, Melvyn, “The Federal Judiciary, Free Labor, and Equal Rights,” in The Pullman Strike and the Crisis of the 1890s: Essays on Labor, Politics, and the State, ed. Schneirov, Richard et al. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 159–61Google Scholar.

³ Hacker, Louis M., “The Anticapitalist Bias of American Historians,” in Capitalism and the Historians, ed. Hayek, F. A. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), 72Google Scholar. Hacker notes that the general anticapitalist bias among American historians is not due to Marxist or communist influence, but more from native Jeffersonian-populist traditions. But this is less so in the case of “labor history,” a self-consciously “movement” history that flowered in the 1960s. It is important to note that, in the Marxist view, historical writing, as much as law, is a weapon in the class struggle. That is to say, bourgeois historians will write history in the interests of their class, and so will proletarians—or intellectuals who understand the true interests of the proletariat. This should remind a reader to treat Marxist-inspired labor history with more than the usual critical distance.

⁴ Bonnett, Clarence E., History of Employers' Associations in the United States (New York: Vantage Press, 1956), 14Google Scholar; Hutt, W. H., The Theory of Collective Bargaining, 1930–1975 (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1980), 76Google Scholar.

⁵ Schweikart, Larry and Allen, Michael, A Patriot's History of the United States (Norwalk, CT: Sentinel, 2004), 418Google Scholar.

⁶ “Call for Papers,” Law and History Review 19 (2001)Google Scholar.

⁷ Forbath, William E., “Down by Law? History and Prophecy about Organizing in Hard Times and a Hostile Legal Order,” in Audacious Democracy: Labor, Intellectuals, and the Social Reconstruction of America, ed. Fraser, Steven and Freeman, Joshua B. (Boston, MA: Mariner Books, 1997), 132Google Scholar.

⁸ Kelly, Alfred H., Harbison, Winfred A., and Belz, Herman, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 7th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 398Google Scholar.

⁹ In a generally outstanding recent revisionist work, Daniel R. Ernst dismisses the work of “several scholars [Barry Poulson, Sylvester Petro, Richard Epstein, and Howard Dickman] writing from a libertarian perspective,” noting that they “were not trained as professional historians, and they displayed so little interest in understanding the past on its own terms that their work had little impact. It remains a historiographic dead end.” Ernst, Daniel R., Lawyers Against Labor: From Individual Rights to Corporate Liberalism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 237Google Scholar. It is more than a little doubtful that these authors' lack of academic background or their disinterestedness accounts for the neglect of their works in comparison to the near-universal resort to the work of Frankfurter, Felix and Greene, Nathan, neither of whom (unlike Dickman) possessed a doctorate in history, and whose famous work, The Labor Injunction (New York: Macmillan, 1930)Google Scholar, has been aptly and often called “a brief for the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” See Brissenden, P. F., “The Campaign Against the Labor Injunction,” American Economic Review 23 (1933): 43Google Scholar; Wisdom, John Minor, “Rethinking Injunctions,” Yale Law Journal 89 (1980): 826CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Avery, Dianne, “Images of Violence in Labor Jurisprudence: The Regulation of Picketing and Boycotts, 1894–1921,” Buffalo Law Review 37 (1988–89): 5Google Scholar; and Fisk, Catherine, “Still ‘Learning Something of Legislation’: The Judiciary in the History of Labor Law,” Law and Social Inquiry 19 (1994): 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For works by Poulson, Petro, Epstein, and Dickman, see notes 12, 17, 44, 46, 106, 129, and 134 below.

¹⁰ Levy, Leonard W., The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw: The Evolution of American Law, 1830–1860 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 183Google Scholar.

¹¹ Nelson, William E., Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, 1760–1830 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 51Google Scholar.

¹² Dickman, Howard, Industrial Democracy in America: Ideological Origins of National Labor Relations Policy (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1987), 26–29Google Scholar.

¹³ For two recent works that emphasize that modern, free-labor status was not necessarily an improvement for workers, and that feudal labor restrictions persisted into the twentieth century, see Steinfeld, Robert J., The Invention of Free Labor: The Employment Relation in English and American Law and Culture, 1350–1870 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and Orren, Karen, Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Maine, Henry, Ancient Law (1861; New York: Macmillan, 1931)Google Scholar; Feinman, Jay M., “The Development of the Employment at Will Rule,” American Journal of Legal History 20 (1976): 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedman, Lawrence M., A History of American Law (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 275Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Woodiwiss, Anthony, Rights Versus Conspiracy: A Sociological Essay on the History of Labour Law in the United States (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Nockleby, John T., “Two Theories of Competition in the Early Nineteenth Century Labor Cases,” American Journal of Legal History 38 (1994): 471CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Lambert, , “If the Workers Took a Notion,” 22Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Poulson, B. W., “Criminal Conspiracy, Injunctions, and Damage Suits in Labor Law,” Journal of Legal History 7 (1986): 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Feinman, , “The Development of the Employment at Will Rule,” 122–23Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Woodiwiss, , Rights Versus Conspiracy, 53Google Scholar; Nockleby, , “Two Theories of Competition,” 464Google Scholar.

²⁰ Hovenkamp, Herbert, Enterprise and American Law, 1836–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111, 130–34 (1842)Google Scholar.

²² Nelles, Walter, “Commonwealth v. Hunt,” Columbia Law Review 32 (1932): 1128–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also discussion in Levy, , The Law of the Commonwealth, 192–96Google Scholar; and Tomlins, Christopher L., Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Tomlins, , Law, Labor, and Ideology, 210, 216. Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad Corp., 45 Mass. 49 (1842)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Horwitz, Morton, The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 187–88Google Scholar.

²⁵ Kelly, , Harbison, , and Belz, , The American Constitution, 239Google Scholar.

²⁶ Karsten, Peter, Heart Versus Head: Judge-Made Law in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 224Google Scholar. On the religious content in the education of nineteenth-century federal judges, see Bailey, Mark Warren, Guardians of the Moral Order: The Legal Philosophy of the Supreme Court, 1860–1910 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; and Hovenkamp, Herbert, “The Political Economy of Substantive Due Process,” Stanford Law Review 40 (1988): 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Karsten, Heart Versus Head, 299; italics in original.

²⁸ Cunliffe, Marcus, Chattel Slavery and Wage Slavery: The Anglo-American Context, 1830–1860 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1979), 23Google Scholar. For a recent effort, see Foner, Philip S. and Shapiro, Herbert, eds., Northern Labor and Antislavery: A Documentary History (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Hovenkamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 222Google Scholar.

³⁰ New National Era, May 7, 1874Google Scholar.

³¹ Independent, July 26, 1877Google Scholar.

³² Forbath, William E., “The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age,” Wisconsin Law Review (1985): 767Google Scholar. Foner, Eric adopted “The Ambiguities of Free Labor” as the title of the fourth chapter of his bookReconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (New York: HarperCollins, 1988)Google Scholar. May, Henry F., Protestant Churches and Industrial America, 2d ed. (1949; New York: Octagon Books, 1977), 29Google Scholar, expresses “surprise” at abolitionist antiunionism.

³³ Grob, Gerald N., Workers and Utopia: A Study of Ideological Conflict in the American Labor Movement, 1865–1900 (Evanston, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Ibid., 72.

³⁵ Graham, Hugh Davis and Gurr, Ted Robert, The History of Violence in America: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, rev. ed. (New York: Bantam Political Science, 1970), 281Google Scholar.

³⁶ Avery, “Images of Violence,” 8; italics added. For a similar analysis, see Hale, Robert L., “Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State,” Political Science Quarterly 38 (1923): 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Graham and Gurr, History of Violence in America, 294Google Scholar.

³⁸ Avery, , “Images of Violence,” 13Google Scholar.

³⁹ George, Henry, The Condition of Labor: An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII (New York: John W. Lovell, 1891), 86Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Hutt, , The Theory of Collective Bargaining, 19–22Google Scholar; Forbath, William E., Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 64Google Scholar, following Bonnett, , History of Employers' AssociationsGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Forbath, , Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, chap. 4Google Scholar; Forbath, William E., “Labor,” in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2d ed., ed. Hall, Kermit L. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 565Google Scholar. In Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)Google Scholar, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state act that prohibited workers from working more than ten hours in a day or sixty hours in a week.

⁴² Cortner, Richard C., The Wagner Act Cases (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1964), 3Google Scholar; Arkes, Hadley, “Lochner v. New York and the Cast of Our Laws,” in Great Cases in Constitutional Law, ed. Robert P. George (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 112Google Scholar. The revisionist works are legion. A few major ones are Warren, Charles, “A Bulwark to the State Police Power—The United States Supreme Court,” and “The Progressivism of the United States Supreme Court,” Columbia Law Review 13 (1913): 294, 667CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urofsky, Melvyn, “Myth and Reality: The Supreme Court and Protective Legislation in the Progressive Era,” Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook 19 (1983): 53Google Scholar; Phillips, Michael, The Lochner Court, Myth and Reality: Substantive Due Process from the 1890s to the 1930s (New York: Praeger Publishers, 2001)Google Scholar; and Benedict, Michael Les, “Laissez-Faire and Liberty: A Re-Evaluation of the Meaning and Origins of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism,” Law and History Review 3 (1985): 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

In substantive due process analysis, the Supreme Court claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment's provision that “no state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” protected certain fundamental rights against legislative interference. Among these rights was “liberty of contract,” which permitted competent, adult males in ordinary occupations to make employment contracts on whatever terms they thought advantageous.

⁴³ Taylor, Benjamin J. and Witney, Fred, U.S. Labor Relations Law: Historical Development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992), 11Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Petro, Sylvester, “Injunctions and Labor Disputes: 1880–1932,” Wake Forest Law Review 14 (1978): 462Google Scholar. The one exception was the Michigan case of Clarage v. Luphringer, 202 Mich. 612 (1918)Google Scholar. On this case, see Derifield, Coreen, “Defining Peaceful Picketing: The Michigan Supreme Court and the Labor Injunction, 1900–1940” (M.A. thesis, Western Michigan University, 2005), 80–96Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287 (1941)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Petro, , “Injunctions and Labor Disputes,” 471–72Google Scholar; Petro, Sylvester, “Unions and the Southern Courts: Part II—Violence and Injunctions in Southern Labor Disputes,” North Carolina Law Review 59 (1981): 896, 906Google Scholar; McCracken, Duane, Strike Injunctions in the New South (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), 143Google Scholar; Taylor and Witney, U.S. Labor Relations Law, 94Google Scholar; Derifield, , “Defining Peaceful Picketing,” 8, 50, 65–73, 91Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Poulson, , “Criminal Conspiracy, Injunctions, and Damage Suits in Labor Law,” 226Google Scholar; Petro, , “Unions and the Southern Courts: Part II,” 901, 905Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Posner, Richard, “Some Economics of Labor Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 51 (1984): 992CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hovenkamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 213Google Scholar; Reynolds, Morgan O., “The Myth of Labor's Inequality of Bargaining Power,” Journal of Labor Research 12 (1991): 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Hovenkamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 188, 208Google Scholar. Cf. Hurvitz, Haggai, “American Labor Law and the Doctrine of Entrepreneurial Property Rights: Boycotts, Courts, and the Juridical Reorientation of 1886–1895,” Industrial Relations Law Journal 8 (1986): 349Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Hovenkamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 229Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Ibid., 208.

⁵² Ibid., 22.

⁵³ Dickman, , Industrial Democracy in America, 4Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 179 (1911)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Armentano, Dominick T., Antitrust: The Case for Repeal (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999)Google Scholar; Hazlett, Thomas W., “The Legislative History of the Sherman Act Re-Examined,” Economic Inquiry 30 (1992): 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 582 (1895)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ “Gov. Altgeld's Message,” New York Times, January 11, 1895, p. 10Google Scholar; Democratic Party Platform, July 9, 1896Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Ross, William G., A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890–1937 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ O'Brien, Ruth, Workers' Paradox: The Republican Origins of New Deal Labor Policy, 1886–1935 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 23Google Scholar; Dickman, , Industrial Democracy in America, 224, 253Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Erdman Act, 30 Stat. L. 428 (1898)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 162 (1908)Google Scholar. The Court struck down a virtually identical state law, as violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equivalent due process clause, in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)Google Scholar.

⁶² Lovell, George I., Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 72, 88–90Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ernst, , Lawyers Against Labor, 16Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908)Google Scholar; Ernst, , Lawyers Against Labor, 16, 56, 109Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Ernst, , Lawyers Against Labor, 122Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Kersch, Ken I., “The Gompers v. Buck's Stove Saga: A Constitutional Case Study in Dialogue, Resistance, and the Freedom of Speech,” Journal of Supreme Court History 31 (2006): 28–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The cases were Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) and 233 U.S. 604 (1914)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 (1922)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 268 U.S. 295 (1925)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Clayton Antitrust Act, 38 Stat. L. 323 (1914)Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ McCartin, Joseph A., Labor's Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations, 1912–1921 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 17Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Ernst, , Lawyers Against Labor, 166Google Scholar.

⁷² Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Labor Conspiracies in American Law, 1880–1930,” Texas Law Review 66, no. 5 (1988): 964Google Scholar.

⁷³ Kelly, , Harbison, , and Belz, , The American Constitution, 450Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Lovell, , Legislative Deferrals, 210Google Scholar; Ross, , Muted Fury, 172–80Google Scholar; McCartin, , Labor's Great War, 224Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ McCartin, , Labor's Great War, 7Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Higgs, Robert, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 118Google Scholar; Dickman, , Industrial Democracy in America, 241Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Higgs, , Crisis and Leviathan, 143–47Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Dickman, , Industrial Democracy in America, 243Google Scholar; O'Brien, Workers' ParadoxGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ Leuchtenburg, William E., “The New Deal and the Analogue of War,” in The F.D.R. Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; McCartin, , Labor's Great War, 90–105Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Reynolds, Morgan O., “An Economic Analysis of the Norris–LaGuardia Act, the Wagner Act, and the Labor Representation Industry,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 6 (1982): 237Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229 (1917)Google Scholar.

⁸² Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)Google Scholar.

⁸³ Duplex Printing Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921)Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Journeymen Stone Cutters Association of North America, 274 U.S. 37 (1927)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Ernst, , Lawyers Against LaborGoogle Scholar; Petro, , “Injunctions in Labor Disputes,” 355Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ O'Brien, Workers' Paradox, 14Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ American Steel Foundries, 257 U.S. at 209Google Scholar; McCartin, , Labor's Great War, 186Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ But the act did not impose exclusive majority unionism nor prohibit company unions. The Supreme Court upheld the act, though it did not explicitly overrule Adair, in Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (1930)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ While some authorities see an increase of yellow-dog contracts in the 1920s (Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920–1933 [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1960], 200Google Scholar; Taylor and Witney, U.S. Labor Relations Law, 30)Google Scholar, others see a decline (Lovell, , Legislative Deferrals, 177Google Scholar; Ernst, Daniel R., “The Yellow-Dog Contract and Liberal Reform, 1917–1932,” Labor History 30 [1989]: 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar). But in a later work Ernst refers to the “spread of yellow-dog contracts” in the 1920s (Lawyers Against Labor, 231Google Scholar).

⁹¹ Taylor and Witney, U.S. Labor Relations Law, 148Google Scholar.

⁹² Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. L. 70 (1932), sec. 2Google Scholar; emphasis added.

⁹³ Ibid., sec. 4(c).

⁹⁴ Ibid., sec. 5.

⁹⁵ Woodiwiss, , Rights Versus Conspiracy, 178Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Lovell, , Legislative Deferrals, 210Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Hawley, Ellis, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966), 25Google Scholar; Kelly, , Harbison, , and Belz, , The American Constitution, 471–74Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. L. 194 (1933), sec. 7(a)Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Dulles, Foster Rhea, Labor in America: A History, 3d ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1960), 261Google Scholar; Barenberg, Mark, “The Political Economy of the Wagner Act: Power, Symbol, and Workplace Cooperation,” Harvard Law Review 106 (1993): 1401–2, 1436–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. L. 449 (1935)Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Evans, M. Stanton, “The Liberal Twilight,” Imprimis 5 (August 1976)Google Scholar; Reynolds, Morgan O., Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (New York: Universe, 1984), 163Google Scholar.

¹⁰² National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. L. 449 (1935)Google Scholar. Some argued that the NIRA, and even Norris-LaGuardia, had already imposed a similar duty to bargain. Dickman, See, Industrial Democracy in America, 241, 260Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Attorney General Homer Cummings advised Roosevelt to veto the bill on constitutional grounds. McKenna, Marian C., Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-Packing Crisis of 1937 (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002), 195, 327, 425Google Scholar; Irons, Peter, The New Deal Lawyers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 110Google Scholar; Bernstein, Irving, The Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933–1941 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970), 341Google Scholar. At the same time, Roosevelt hoped that the Supreme Court would continue to strike down New Deal legislation, and thus alienate public opinion enough so that the public would support his effort to bring the court to heel. See Leuchtenburg, William E., The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 100Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Woodiwiss, , Rights Versus Conspiracy, 179Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Hansen, Drew D., “The Sit-Down Strikes and the Switch in Time,” Wayne Law Review 46 (2000): 50Google Scholar; Pope, James, “Worker Lawmaking, Sit-Down Strikes, and the Shaping of American Industrial Relations, 1935–1938,” Law and History Review 24 (2006): 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Court upheld the Wagner Act in a set of cases beginning with National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Leuchtenburg, , The F.D.R. Years, 19Google Scholar; Reynolds, , Power and Privilege, 251Google Scholar; Petro, Sylvester, “Civil Liberty, Syndicalism, and the N.L.R.A.,” Toledo Law Review 5 (1974): 496–97Google Scholar. The definition of “entitlement” that I employ follows Mansfield, Harvey, America's Constitutional Soul (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 56Google Scholar. A more technical, philosophical definition can be found in Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Barenberg, , “Political Economy of the Wagner Act,” 1437, 1441Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ There is little doubt that the La Follette Committee was engaged in a prounion publicity effort, largely to counteract the negative public reaction to the sit-down strikes. Many historians take the committee's work at face value; one pair of historians calls it “the most complete study” of employer antiunion abuses and of “unquestionable accuracy” (Taylor and Witney, U.S. Labor Relations LawGoogle Scholar). But the most careful study of the committee notes, more modestly: “The La Follette Committee certainly did not fabricate its findings; through its choice of incidents and witnesses, however, it painted a picture that indicated occasional blindness to shadings of gray. Nuance and complexities were obscured by the committee's zeal to accelerate and justify the C.I.O. [Congress of Industrial Organizations] organizing drives.” Auerbach, Jerold S., Labor and Liberty: The La Follette Committee and the New Deal (Indianapolis, IN: Irvington Publishers, 1966), 8–9, 28, 108Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, fn. 4 (1938)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Forbath, William E., “The New Deal Constitution in Exile,” Duke Law Journal 51 (2001): 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹¹ Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940)Google Scholar.

¹¹² Cortner, Richard C., The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981)Google Scholar. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)Google Scholar, is usually cited as the beginning of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but the Court acted in a similar fashion in Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287 (1941)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Kelly, , Harbison, , and Belz, , The American Constitution, 524Google Scholar. Needless to say, strikes often interfered with First Amendment as well as other freedoms. In 1950, a newspaper publisher in Norfolk, Virginia, was resisting unionization by using his “daughters, sons-in-law, nieces and nephews” to carry on publishing during a strike. C.I.O. Committee on Civil Rights member Boyd Wilson suggested that “[a] daughter's head will bleed just like a head that isn't a daughter's. You simply have to apply that kind of tactics.” When the chairman of the committee objected, Wilson replied, “We put a picket line out there and that daughter, mama or nobody else is going in.” Proceedings of Civil Rights Staff Conference, National C.I.O. Committee to Abolish Discrimination, May 24, 1950, pp. 205–6, 234, R.G. 9-001, Box 7, George Meany Memorial Archives, Silver Spring, MarylandGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Apex Hosiery v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940)Google Scholar. See Meltzer, Bernard D., “Labor Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the Antitrust Laws,” Journal of Law and Economics 6 (1963): 158–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Apex Hosiery v. Leader, 310 U.S. at 528 (Hughes, C.J., dissenting)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ U.S. v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 232 (1941)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Id. at 245 (Roberts, J., dissenting). See Meltzer, , “Labor Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the Antitrust Laws,” 160–61Google Scholar.

¹²⁰ Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U.S. 821, 830 (1945) (Jackson, J., dissenting)Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Meltzer, , “Labor Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the Antitrust Laws,” 167, 170Google Scholar; Winter, Ralph K., “Collective Bargaining and Competition: The Application of Antitrust Standards to Union Activities,” Yale Law Journal 73 (1963): 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²² Apex Hosiery v. Leader, 310 U.S. at 526Google Scholar.

¹²³ U.S. v. Local 807, 315 U.S. 521, 530, 526 (1942)Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Lee, R. Alton, Truman and Taft-Hartley: A Question of Mandate (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1966), 44Google Scholar; U.S. v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973)Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Polenberg, Richard, War and Society: The United States, 1941–1945 (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1972), 158Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ See Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192 (1944)Google Scholar; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210 (1944)Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ Dickman, , Industrial Democracy in America, 283Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949)Google Scholar. See Baird, Charles W., “Right to Work Before and After 14(b),” Journal of Labor Research 19 (1998): 471–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁹ Petro, Sylvester, How the N.L.R.B. Repealed Taft-Hartley (Washington, DC: Labor Policy Association, 1958)Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Pound, Roscoe, “Legal Immunities of Labor Unions,” in Labor Unions and Public Policy, ed. Chamberlin, Edward H. et al. (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Association, 1958), 145–63Google Scholar. Pound, 's early progressivism can be seen in his essay “Liberty of Contract,” Yale Law Journal 18 (1909): 454–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. By the post–World War II period, his sociological jurisprudence had been surpassed by the more radical “legal realist” school, which Robert Wagner credited as the basis of the NLRA. See Barenberg, , “Political Economy of the Wagner Act,” 1409Google Scholar; and Cortner, , The Wagner Act Cases, 193Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Hayek, Friedrich A., The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 266, 268Google Scholar.

¹³² Landrum-Griffin Act, 73 Stat. L. 519 (1959)Google Scholar. See Gross, James A., Broken Promise: The Subversion of U.S. Labor Relations Policy, 1947–1994 (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995), 138, 191Google Scholar.

¹³³ Gross, , Broken PromiseGoogle Scholar; Klare, Karl E., “The Judicial Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937–1941,” Minnesota Law Review 62 (1978): 265Google Scholar; Finkin, Matthew W., “Revisionism in Labor Law,” Maryland Law Review 43 (1984): 23Google Scholar; Klare, Karl E., “Traditional Labor Law Scholarship and the Crisis of Collective Bargaining: A Reply to Professor Finkin,” Maryland Law Review 44 (1985): 731Google Scholar; Rabban, David M., “Has the N.L.R.A. Hurt Labor?” University of Chicago Law Review 54 (1987): 407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁴ On the impact of federal antidiscrimination laws, see Stein, Judith, Running Steel, Running America: Race, Economic Policy, and the Decline of Liberalism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998)Google Scholar; and Schiller, Reuel E., “From Group Rights to Individual Liberties: Postwar Labor Law, Liberalism, and the Waning of Union Strength,” Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 20 (1999): 1Google Scholar; and Epstein, Richard A., How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2006), 98Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Troy, Leo, “The Right to Organize Meets the Market,” in Liberty, Property, and the Future of Constitutional Development, ed. Paul, Ellen Frankel and Dickman, Howard (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), 314–16Google Scholar; Farber, Harry S. and Western, Bruce, “Accounting for the Decline of Unions in the Private Sector,” in The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the U.S., ed. Bennett, James T. and Kaufman, Bruce E. (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2002), 53Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Troy, , “The Right to Organize Meets the Market,” 319Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Lipset, Seymour Martin and Katchanovski, Ivan, “The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the U.S.,” in Bennett, and Kaufman, , eds., The Future of Private Sector Unionism, 23Google Scholar; Hirsch, Barry T. and Schumacher, Edward J., “Private Sector Union Density and the Wage Premium,”Google Scholaribid., 103; Dubofsky, , “The Federal Judiciary, Free Labor, and Equal Rights,” 173–74Google Scholar; Epstein, , How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution, 126Google Scholar.