# Thomas v. Collins

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 15, 1945 · 323 U.S. 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419573

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas v. Collins, Sheriff
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 15, 1945
- **Citations:** 323 U.S. 516; 65 S. Ct. 315; 89 L. Ed. 430; 1945 U.S. LEXIS 2716
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Rutledge, Douglas, Jackson, Roberts, Black, Murphy, Reed, Feankfuetee
- **Cited by:** 996 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419573

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a law forbidding solicitation of union membership without obtaining an organizer’s card infringed on the right of speech and assembly to inform people of the advantages of union membership and persuade them to join a specific .union
- holding that the very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion
- stating that an 47 as applied challenge considers the “application” of a statute “to the particular circumstances of an individual” (citation omitted)
- noting that certain stated justifications for infringement on religious liberty would likely not suffice in justifying the infringement and recognizing the government’s burden of showing that no alternatives existed to meet those justifications
- holding that a state may regulate labor unions but "[s]uch regulation ... must not trespass upon the domain set apart for ... free assembly"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring.
The intimation that the principle announced in this case serves labor alone and not an employer has been adequately answered in the opinion of the Court in which I join. But the emphasis on such cases as Labor Board v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469 , and Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Labor Board, 319 U. S. 533 , to prove that discrimination exists moves me to add these words. Those cases would be relevant here if we were dealing with legislation which regulated the relations between unions and their members. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., ante, p. 192. No one may be required to obtain a license in order to speak. But once he uses the economic power which he has over other men and their jobs to influence their action, he is doing more than exercising the freedom of speech protected by the First Amend *544 ment. That is true whether he be an employer or an employee. But as long as he does no more than speak he has the same unfettered right, no matter what side of an issue he espouses.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Murphy join in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419573. Public record. Not legal advice.