◆ SpookStack

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 651.—Octoper Tres, 1938, Frank Hague, Individually and as) Mayor of Jersey City, et al, &e., Petitioners, On Writ of Certiorari to vs. the United States Cir- Committee for Industrial Organiza-f cuit Court of Appeals tion, Steel Workers Organizing| {tor the Third Circuit. Comittee of the Committee for In- dustria} Organization, et al. J [June 5, 1939.] Mr. Justice Stonz I do not doubt that the decree helow, modified as has been pro- posed, is rightly affirmed, but I am unable to follow the path by which some of *y brethren have attained that end, and I think the matter is of sufiicient importance to merit discussion in some detail. It has beet ¢xplicitly and repeatedly affirmed by this Court, with- ont a dissenting voice, that freedom of speeph and of assembly for any lawful purpose are rights of personal liberty secured to all persons, withont regard to citizenship, by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow ¥. New Fork, 268 U. 8. 652; Whitney v. California, 214 U. S. 457; Fiske v, Kansas, 274 U. 8. 380; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. 8. 359; Near v, Minnesota, 283 US. 697; Grasjean v. Atmertcan Press Co, 297 UL 8. 233; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. 8. 343; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. 8. 249; Lavell v. Griffin, 303 U. S& 444. It has never been held that either is a privilege or immunity peculiar to citizenship of the United States, to which alone the privileges and immunities clause refers, Slanghter-Tfouse Cases, 16 Wall, 36; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 0, 8, 877, 382. Tutning v. New Jersey, 211 U. 8. 78, 97; Maz. well v, Bugbee, 250 U. 8. 525, 538; Hamilton v, Regents, 293 U. 8. 245, 261, and neither can be brought within the protection of that elanse without enlarging the category of privileges and immunities of United States citizenship as it has hitherto been defined.