◆ SpookStack

26 Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. the absurd conclusion that § 24(14) is meaningless and that a large proportion of the suits authorized by the Civil Rights Act cannot be maintained in any court, although jurisdiction of them, with no requirement of jurisdictional amount, was carefuliy preserved by § 24614) of the Judicial Code and by the 1911 amendment of §24(1). By treating § 24(14) as conferring federal jurisdiction of suits brought under the Act of 1871 in which the right asserted ia inherently incapable of pecuniary valuation, we harmonize the two paraltel provisions,of the Judicial Code, conatrue neither as super- fluous, and give to each a scope in conformity with its histery and manifert purpose. The practical construction which has been given by this Court to the two jurisdictional provisions establishes that the jurisdic- tion conferred by §24(14) has been preserved to the extent in- dicated, In Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U. 8. 68, suit was brought to restrain aiieged unconstitutional iaxaiion of patent rights. The Court held that the suit was one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States within the meaning of §24(1) of the Judicial Code and that the United States Circuit Court in which the suit had been begun was without jurisdiction because the cha!- lenged tax was less than the jurisdictional amount. The Court remarked that the present § 24(14) applied only to suits alleging de- privation of ‘‘civil rights’. On the other hand, in Truac v, Raich, ° 239: U.S. 33, aff’g 219 Fed. 273, this Court sustained the juris- diction of a district court to entertain the suit of an alien to restrain enforcement of a state statute alleged to be an infringement of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment becaune it dis- criminated against aliens in their right to seek and retain employ- ment. The jurisdiction of a district court was similarly sustained in Crane v. Johansen, 242 U.S. 339, on the authority of Truar v. Rath, supra. The svit was brought in a district court to restrain enforcement of 4 state statute alleged to deny equal protection in suppressing the freedom to pursue a particular trade or calling. For the purposes of the present case it is important to note that the constitutional right or immunity alleged in these two cases was one of personal freedom, invoked in the Raich case by one not a citizen of the TInited States. In both cases the right asserted arose under the equal protection, not the privileges and immunities elause; in both the gist of the cause of action waa not damage or injury to property, but unconstitutional infringement of a right Hagne vs, Committee for fndastrial Organization. 27 of peraonal liberty not susceptible of valuation in money. The jurisdiclion was sustained despite the omission of any allecation or proof of jurisdictional amount, pointedly brought to the attention of thig Court. The conelusion seems inescapable that the right conferred by the Act of 1871 to maintain a suit in equity in the federal courts to pra- tect the suitor against a deprivation of rights or immunities secured by the Constitution, bas been preserved, and that whenever the right-or immunity is one of personal liberty, not dependent for its existence upon the infringement of property rights, there is juris- diction in the district court under § 24(14) of the Judicial Code to entertain it without proof that the amount in controversy execcds £3,000. As the right is secured to ‘any person’ by the due process clanse, and as the statute permits the suit to be bronght by “any person’ as weil as by a citizen, it ig certain that resort to the privi- Jeres antl immunities clause would not support the decree whieh we new sustain and would involve constitutional experimentation as gratuitous os it is anwarranted. We cannot be sure that its conse- guences would not be unfortunate. Mr. Chief Justice Hucies, concurring: tice Roserrs and in the affirmance of the jndgment as modified. With respect to the point as to juvisdietioh I agree with what is said jn the opinion of Mr, Justice Ronrrts as to the right to dis- cuss the Nationat Labor Relations et being a privilege of a citi- zen of the United States, but T am not satisfied that the record adequately supports the resting of jurisdiction upon that. ground. As to that matler, | eonenr in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stone, Mr. Justice McRryNoips. L am of opinion that the decree of the Cireuit Court of Appeals should he reversed and the cause remanded to the Distriet Court with insteuctions to dismiss the Dill, In the cireusnstances disclosed, J emelude that the Tistriet Court should have refused to interfere