Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Haguer v. Committee for Industrial Organization

307 U.S. 496

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1939-06-05
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that in federal civil rights cases punitive damages may be awarded even without an award of compensatory damages
  • holding that only natural persons are entitled to the privileges and immunities of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • holding that to establish a claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, plaintiffs must allege discrimination on the basis of out-of-state residency
  • noting that public streets and sidewalks are traditional public fora which “time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions”
  • stating that the Privileges and Immunities Clause “prevents a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own”
  • stating that parks “have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”
  • indicating that streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions"
  • holding a corporation cannot assert privileges and immunities under the fourteenth amendment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Haguer v. Committee for Industrial Organization. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2174 opinions

By leave of Court, the Committee on the Bill of Rights of the American Bar Association, filed a brief, as amid curiae, discussing the right of assembly. See p. 678.

Mr. Justice Butler, presiding in the absence of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice McReynolds:

The judgment of the eoúrt in this case is that the decree is modified and as modified affirmed. Mr. Justice Eéankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Mr. Justice Roberts has an opinion in which Mr. Justice Black concurs, and Mr. Justice Stone an opinion in which Mr. Justice Reed concurs. The Chief Justice concurs in an opinion. Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Butler dissent for reasons stated in opinions by-them respectively.