Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

De Veau v. Braisted

• 1959 • 363 U.S. 144 • Warren Court
In De Veau v. Braisted (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York law that barred convicted felons from holding office in waterfront labor organizations. The case arose when Wilfred De Veau, who had been convicted of felony embezzlement, was elected as an officer in a local longshoremen's union and then challenged the constitutionality of the state law barring him from serving due to his conviction. He argued that it violated both his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1959
Docket: 71
363 U.S. 144
80 S. Ct. 1146
4 L. Ed. 2d 1109
1960 U.S. LEXIS 1863
Argued: Mar 01, 1960

De Veau v. Braisted

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In De Veau v. Braisted (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York law that barred convicted felons from holding office in waterfront labor organizations. The case arose when Wilfred De Veau, who had been convicted of felony embezzlement, was elected as an officer in a local longshoremen's union and then challenged the constitutionality of the state law barring him from serving due to his conviction. He argued that it violated both his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and also infringed upon federal jurisdiction over labor relations established by Congress through legislation such as the National Labor Relations Act and Taft-Hartley Act. However, Justice Felix Frankfurter writing for majority ruled against De Veau stating that there was no conflict between federal laws governing unions and this particular state statute aimed at curbing corruption on waterfronts; hence it did not violate Supremacy Clause or Commerce Clause of Constitution either. Furthermore, he concluded that prohibition against ex-felons holding union office did not violate Equal Protection clause because classification was reasonable given high levels of crime associated with these positions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for De Veau v. Braisted, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 8 of Article VI of the New York State Constitution. He argued that this provision was not intended to disqualify individuals from holding union office due to past felony convictions, but rather aimed at preventing corruption in public offices by barring felons from such positions. According to him, applying this section to union officials would be an overreach and a misinterpretation of its original purpose. Furthermore, he contended that if it were applied as such, it could potentially infringe upon federal labor laws which allow unions autonomy in selecting their representatives. Thus, he believed that state law should not interfere with these federally protected rights unless explicitly allowed by Congress.

Opinion written by Justice FFrankfurter
Decided: Jun 06, 1960
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms