Minnesota Law Review

Note, A Mock Funeral for a First Amendment Double Standard: Containing Coercion in Secondary Labor Boycotts

The secondary boycott provision of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits labor unions from using coercive tactics to induce “neutral” parties to sever economic ties with others. Although the judiciary has failed to clearly delineate the concept of coercion, secondary labor picketing has been deemed categorically coercive and subject to interdiction without constitutional concern. In stark contrast, public-issue picketing has received full First Amendment protection as a prized instance of political expression.

A recent D.C. Circuit Court decision implicitly acknowledged the indefensibility of according labor protests less constitutional protection than other public protests. Taking these latent insights as a focal point, this Note argues that the constitutional asymmetry between labor and political speech, particularly with regard to picketing, amounts to impermissible content-based regulation. To avoid the specter of unconstitutional restriction, this Note proposes a new methodology for interpreting the ban on secondary coercion to ensure that it comports with general First Amendment precepts and precedent. This Note advocates a reasonable person standard, limited by a principle of formal equality between labor and political protests, for determining whether labor picketing is truly coercive and, thus, subject to valid prohibition. Under this formulation, certain forms of secondary labor picketing should be considered legitimate exercises of First Amendment rights.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]