New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices. Sanitary Grocery Co. was at the time of the case owned by Safeway Inc.

New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2–3, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938
Full case name	New Negro Alliance et al. v Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc.
Citations	303 U.S. 552 (more) 58 S. Ct. 703; 82 L. Ed. 1012; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 367; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 464; 1 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,030; 2 L.R.R.M. 592
Case history
Prior	92 F.2d 510 (D.C. Cir. 1937); cert. granted, 302 U.S. 679 (1937).
Subsequent	As amended by order of April 25, 1938, see 304 U.S.
Holding
It was intended by the Congress that peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business should be lawful.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis Pierce Butler · Harlan F. Stone Owen Roberts · Benjamin N. Cardozo Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Black, Reed
Dissent	McReynolds, joined by Butler
Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Norris-LaGuardia Act sect. 13a

Judgment

The court concluded that according to the United States Congress "peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business should be lawful; that, short of fraud, breach of the peace, violence, or conduct otherwise unlawful, those having a direct or indirect interest in such terms and conditions of employment should be at liberty to advertise and disseminate facts and information with respect to terms and conditions of employment, and peacefully to persuade others to concur in their views respecting an employer's practices."^[1]

See also

• US labor law
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 303