Linehan v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Staten Island Loaders v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor 558, s. 557

• Decision Date: 12 April 1954
• Docket Number: Nos. 557,s. 557
• Citation: 347 U.S. 439,74 S.Ct. 623,98 L.Ed. 826
• Parties: LINEHAN et al. v. WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR et al. STATEN ISLAND LOADERS, Inc. et al. v. WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR et al. & 558
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

347 U.S. 439

74 S.Ct. 623

98 L.Ed. 826

LINEHAN et al.

v WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR et al.

STATEN ISLAND LOADERS, Inc. et al.

v. WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR et al.

Nos. 557 & 558.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 12, 1954

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1954.

See 347 U.S. 994, 74 S.Ct. 849.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments, 116 F.Supp. 683, 117 F.Supp. 308 are affirmed.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.

The case illustrates what I fear is a growing practice of the Court of diluting the Act of Congress which gives us jurisdiction of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1253 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253 et seq. The Congress carved out a group of cases, of which this is one, that comes here as of right and is not dependent, as are petitions for certiorari, on a vote of four Justices out of nine for an adjudication by the Court on the merits of the controversy. In recent years the Court has more and more dismissed or affirmed appeals, with no opportunity of counsel to make oral argument and without any opinion by the Court.

These appeals should not be added to that growing list.

New York and New Jersey made a Compact, approved by Congress, for the regulation of employment on the waterfront of New York.¹ The agency through which the plan is effected is the Waterfront Commission, composed of one representative of New York and one of New Jersey. It has charge of the employment of all longshoremen. A longshoremen's register is established; and no one can be employed unless he is on the register. The Commission 'may in its discretion' deny an applicant the right to register.

—if he has been convicted of treason, murder, manslaughter, illegal possession of firearms, possessing burglar's instruments, receiving stolen property, unlawful entry of a building, aiding an escape from prison, unlawfully possessing or distributing habit-forming drugs, or

—if he is a Communist or teaches the Communist creed, or

—if in the judgment of the Commission, his presence on the waterfront would constitute 'a danger to the public peace or safety.'

Two main questions are at once suggested.

First, are the standards by which men are deprived of the right to work constitutional? This is a new question on which the Court has never ruled. May a state prescribe standards for employment that have no relevancy to the competency of the men to perform the work? Under this Compact a man who, in a reckless moment runs over a person in his car and kills him and is convicted of manslaughter, apparently stands disqualified for employment. So does a Communist, whether he be of the cloak and dagger variety or a paler type. Are those criteria constitutional? An individual who is deprived of employment for such a reason could raise the question. But if the standard itself has no relevancy to the competency of men to do the work, why may not the Compact be tested at the very threshold?

This is a substantial question which our cases do not answer. We...