Facts of the Case
This was an action brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut under § 7 of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, claiming threefold damages for injuries inflicted on plaintiffs by a combination or conspiracy declared to be unlawful by the act.
Conclusions
-
The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, makes no distinction between classes. Organizations of farmers and laborers were not exempted from its operation, notwithstanding the efforts which the records of Congress show were made in that direction. A combination of labor organizations and the members thereof, to compel a manufacturer whose goods are almost entirely sold in other States to unionize his shops and, on his refusal so to do to, boycott his goods and prevent their sale in States other than his own until such time as the resulting damage forces him to comply with their demands is, under the conditions of this case, a combination in restraint of interstate trade or commerce within the meaning of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, and the manufacturer may maintain an action for threefold damages under 7 of that act.
Bargaining Rights Gone Wrong: How State Courts Invented a Constitutional Duty to Bargain and How It Harms Individual Workers
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
Constitutions often give you the right to do things. They give you the right to...
Constitutionality of Proposed Federal Liability Limitations for COVID-19 Exposure Claims
By Michael A. Carvin & Yaakov M. Roth Over the past weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic...
