◆ SpookStack

= ve wy rane SUPREME COURT last term, | vote of. 4 to 2, ordered E. I. d de Nemours & Co. to divest itont he nt Motors. Current controversy over th court has nearly all centered on decisi relating to communism, security, and ; civil rights and it is sometimes forgotten | that it has been simultantously busy with wide flelds of other intricate. matters, as the du Pont case indicates, The court dealt with labor arbitration and picketing; attempted to lay down guiding rules in control of obscenity, revereod itcalf on the nogar af tha ritig TOVSTSS 258.4 OF LOS POWEr C2 tae Tiss tary to try civilian dependents abroad tor capital crimes, and applied antitrust sional baseball. Here are some of these cases, regulation to professional football— ce Frankfurter sharply dissenting. He . though continuing to exclude ae: of a burden on the/federal cour =| ae 1. Du Pont. . The term “revolutionary” has been applied to this opinion. It was written ‘by Mr. Associate Justice Brennan with sharp dissent noted by Messrs. Associate Justices Burton and Frankfurter. It threw out the. rule which the Federal Trade Commission has used for over 40 years in administering the Clayton Act. The rule was that the act applied to “horizontal” stock acquisitions (where company A buys stock in competing company B) but not to “vertical” acqui- sitions (where company A buys stock in noncompetitor company C). The court ruled June 3 that du Ponts 1917-1919 acquisition of GM stock gave it illegal competitive advantage in the sale to GM of du Pont fabrics and paints. The decision has long-range social and economic implications—as for example in industry, how big is “big’'? Without saying so directly, the rather generalized Brennan opinion may put a . limit on vertical expansion of American industrial empires. He argued that Con- gress did intend to cover vertical acquisi- under the act although the FTC took a contrary position. _ - The opinion’ has been sharply criti- cized, Among others, by the dissenting anticism specifically nned, why shoulda’ it ay a ae judggs. The point implicit her is | whether the court is usurping the jpb of _ legéslation, If Congress wants vijrtical 4 | - im Trade Unions” woe t In a variety of cases the most ra, of a 23 per cent stock interest in General : Tha ve ety of ases the Teds | gives the federal courts the job of super-, a AE ari “ae BE. eM ictal Decisions. ae ee nH er ara a . vising and enforcing compliance with arbitration clauses in collective bargain- ing agreements. If the act does so, it is a tall order. As a Jower court put it, “it authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of those collective bargaining agree- ments ... (with) specific performance of promises to arbitrate grievances, .’. .”. The high court ruled that this is what the Taft Act required, Mr. Associate Jus- oe ee dy of substan complicated “to fashion a whole ppropriste for “ey he problems ed | by collective’ biirgaining. .. . In another trade union case Mr. Jus- tice Frankfurter wrote: the majority opinion. Constitutional free speech pro- visions, he ruled for the court, do not prevent a state from enjoining ‘peaceful picketing that violates a section of a state “right-to-work” law: this one. ban- ning unions from trying to coerée an employer to interfere’ with his em- ployees’ right to join or stay out of a union. Dissenting were Messrs. Justices _Warren, Douglas, and Black.- - . 3. ‘Control of Obscenity | |: Drawing a distinction between free . speech and the evils of obscenity has long bothered the court. This year it unanimously ruled that Michigan cen- not make it a criminal offense to provide the adult publle with a book, that. is regarded by some as not fit to be read by children. _. But a majority of the court also up- held a number of other less generalized obscenity statutes. It established this standard “whether to the’ average per- ‘ son, applying contempor community standards, the dominant theme of the atertal. taken as a Whole, appeals to rurient interest.'’” Milisa., Wet ¥en cr. ‘lefns with that, convictions of two women chay killing their husbands ‘and r +; Military Trials ‘of Civil _ In June, 1956, the court fe the — — ~ Foe - anllitary court trials of civillans in ¢c court in June this year overrule tal offenses overseas are constitution. In one of the fastest switches in histo th iteelt and held such trials unconstitu- tional. The dissenters of 2 year age LlGhSi. 2f5f GISSSmiers Of Tar Seo bee ‘came the majority when Mr. Associate Justice Harlan changed positions and Mr. Justice Frankfurter, who reserved judg- . ment last year, joined therm. The decision is limited to (A) capital offenses, (B)} servicemen’s civilian dependents, and (C) times of peace. Naturally, such quick reversals as this bring criticism o the: high court's stability. . . . 5. Professional Football Here again the court runs into some charges of inconsistency for it has just ruled professional football is subject to antitrust laws while professional baseball ' Temains free from regulation. In 1922 the then Supreme Court held baseball ‘outside antitrust laws as a sport, not a business, in the meaning of Congress. Mr, Associate Justice Clark, writing for the court, this year frankly recognized the difficulty of the position: “Sf this ruling is unrealistic, ‘inconsis- tent, or illogical, it 's sufficient to an- swer, aside from the distinctions between the businesses, that were we considering the question of baseball for the first - time upon a clean state we would hdve no doubts” (ie. that baseball should covered by ‘the. Sherman Act), But, added, It now is up to Congress, | . + : !