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

National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co.

• 1950 • 341 U.S. 322 • Vinson Court
In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Highland Park Manufacturing Company was guilty of unfair labor practices, including interfering with its employees' rights to self-organize and bargain collectively. The company argued that it did not have to comply with a cease-and-desist order from the NLRB because it was engaged in interstate commerce, which...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1950
Docket: 425
341 U.S. 322
71 S. Ct. 758
95 L. Ed. 2d 969
1951 U.S. LEXIS 2416
Argued: Apr 23, 1951

National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Highland Park Manufacturing Company was guilty of unfair labor practices, including interfering with its employees' rights to self-organize and bargain collectively. The company argued that it did not have to comply with a cease-and-desist order from the NLRB because it was engaged in interstate commerce, which is regulated by Congress rather than individual states. However, the Supreme Court upheld that under Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, courts must enforce orders issued by federal agencies like NLRB unless there is no evidence supporting their findings or if they overstepped their authority. In this case, neither exception applied; therefore, Highland Park Manufacturing Co.'s refusal to comply constituted an illegal act.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against Highland Park was an overreach of federal power, infringing on states' rights. He contended that North Carolina law should govern labor relations within its borders, not federal legislation like the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act). Furthermore, he criticized how broadly "interstate commerce" was interpreted in this case to justify federal jurisdiction. According to him, if every local industrial dispute could be considered as having a substantial effect on interstate commerce merely because it might affect production costs or volume of goods produced for interstate shipment then virtually all aspects of industry would fall under national control which is contrary to our constitutional design.

Opinion written by Justice RHJackson
Decided: May 14, 1951
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