# Motion Amicus Curiae Brief — Pipefitters v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0053%3A10 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Motion Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 407 U.S. 385 ## Text Ree ee ore are Bh SPENT RR Wty oi 5 abla aint : . ee! _— _—— , " lee Wd ; . . > may ° . - , . ° | | . . . % . - : | . . e . : . . | . 2 . ‘ : , | | . ; ’ } : *, > . : | % , | | . , . | . - . . . . e | . | | | | | ! Pe) ; . . . . | . . | ‘ ‘= , | | . - , ; . j e e bad | ” . . | . J : ) J] | | . = | : | | a ‘ ; . \ . ree a . ‘. * ; . | = at ? . . ' - : , | : . . | ° = r . « , ; . | . . s : . . . . . | ) | - : . | | | « | | | | } . 5 . | . 5 . . | | | | . : , | ) | | . . . . | | | | i | - . . . . ; -° : | . . | | | ‘ r. | | . . ; - . . ba | | . , , , | . , , . | | | . , ; . . | . : | , . + . : : | FY . - . 4 . . . . | | ~ . | | | - © : . . ° : « | | = . 2 ; | . , ) . | . | ‘ , . - : ‘ , | i . . : | ‘ , . re \ ied | In THE | | Supreme Court of the Huiten States , Ocroser Tze, 1971 | . oe - No. 70-74 | MOTION FILED | Pureerrens Loca. Uwiow N 0. 562, et al., , Petitioners, —_—Vv.— , Unrrep STATES or AMERICA, : oS - Respondent. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Tes AMICUS CURIAE |. -. » SanForp Jay Rosen. . | American Civil Liberties. Union “156 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10010: Attorneys: for Amicus Curiae Wau J. Bes . American Civil Liberties Union, 156 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10010 Of Counsel . Liberties Union, as Amicus - Curiae : Tae ae | Interest of Amicus Curiae shines tcaitens Byte: oN ee Statement | spiel ssocnielieiiats Patt AO ‘iabeaticiens IE 5 \ ee. ae es. ARGUMENT inte ot ped Section 610 Does Not Apply To The Facts Of This’ wane. vsbveentnesetneeeBctennenpne hipaa coosiepianete 6 II. Section: 610 Violates The ‘First Amendment And Is. Overbroad ........ Lasicsestbchisicaeniansitehinabicicaete Cae - f . TI. Section 610 1a; Unconstitiitionally Vague Sate 14, ~ ConcLusion EEE ALD OR: Cm ie | aoe S17 U8.1 (1964) u "Connally ‘v. General Cénstruction| Co., 269 “. 385 (1926) L Sorceress : Cases: AFSCME. v. Woodward, 406 Fr. - 137 (8th Cir. 1968), 10 Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S"360 (1964) : eaacnnons 14 INDEX PAGE . - Motion for Leave és File a Brief of American Civil TaBLE oF AUTHORITIES . Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ae Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Bhs : - t | . . | te : | | x a ; | ; | oe, - . im ; s = . on i ; ~t “eh pape ‘\ eee ae Sa = : ‘PAGE ae 20 ~ Dombrowski Wi Pa ter, 380 US: 479 (1965). ooeeceecensece a6 i N vy i as “Basiern Railroa re Pridents: ‘Denbereaie v. Noerr: 1 ‘ P| oN & _Motor Freight Inc., 365°U.S. 12% (1961) 22g 11 - oy cree ae Russell, 384 US: ALL — weegtnsine i ll 4 ; " Gjaceo s Ve . Pent isy wania, 38 382 US. 399 (1966) Oe ona a 3 +) ; af os nt EN rae » rae ‘. we eee: vi “¢ L O., 30% U. S. 496 (1939) vane ; 10 : - -“Hertidon v. Low ry; 30% US. 242.(1987). 2c 15 eee LE } ek e . ae he 7 es mm, ‘ ‘ , . a laine Site ae ae ee LaDy sisi patecdan ciety —— Sai po rene . ; -* “Hurwitz. v. Directors Guild: of ‘America, Tnc,, 362.F. 2d Po gt (2d Cir 1966), cert, denied, 385 U.S. 971 (1966) . Bo "International, ‘Abopsintion - defects under the overbreadth doctrine, which has two.com- | - ponents. A law ‘is. overbroad when it proscribes acts “which eo legitimately may be _proscribed” as well as acts “which may - ae not. be proscribed. ” Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New. York, 385 U.S: 589, 609 (1967) ; see also, e.g., United States 2 _- v. Robel, 389. U.S.'258, 267-68 (1967) ; Schneider v. Smith, - - 390 U.S. 17, 24 (1968) ; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 a 1966): A law is also overbroad, in violation of the First : . > Amendment, if some means less restrictive of the essential” — democratic interest j in free communication and association _ is available for government to pursue its other subordinat, , _ ing or paramount —— See, e. 8. = United States vy. . _ US: 367, 376-77. -* to the extent that it penalizes clearly protected activities. . oe See, »8-8-, Unitéd States v. C.I.0., supra (semble) ; ‘ef. Bran- 4 a denburg v. Ohio, 395 US.. 444 (1969). Seetion 610 is un- _ -*. constitutional’ under the second aspect of the overbreadth: | te den of demonstrating that no. less restrictive. means are ‘Ras. . supra; Shilton - v. Tischer, 364 U: S. 479, 488; ) Schneider v. “Smith, supra; ‘United States v. O'Brien; 391 . Section 610 anffevs tions both didocis af uverteuudith. ; - It is unconstitutional under the first aspect of the Hoctrine © doctrine as well. The gov ernment cannot sustain its bur- | available to accomplish its — iy. Cohsmanecl ig shi’ alt 7 and by its spotty history of enforcement, Section 610 | * well within the due process prohibition against vagué is utes—all four aspects of that prohibitic In other words, — ~ on its face and as. applied. to ‘petitioners : (1) This: statute provides inadequate n notice to the petitioners. They - do not know t conduct’ is necessary to confornt- to the -Feqiinement of. law; and they are imable adequately to 7 , prepare their. defense. (2) This statute lodges much too ~~ much discretion in the judge and jury. It leaves them free | ae decide, unconstrained by legally, fixed standards, what ”. is prohibited and what is not in each case. (3) This statute iS : also leaves the prosecutor. ‘SO: unrestrained that he n y en- 5 . foree the law discriminatorily and selectively a t.oply _ persons’ ‘and groups with whom. he is displeas: . (4) This. * statute dangerously abuts and impinge es ‘upon federally bee "* protected freedoms and activities. . On its face, Section 610 i woman vague in. several. particulars. Most notably, there. is no definition - . of the word “expenditure.” By “strain[ing] words” (United States v. Rumely, 345 US. 41, 47 (1952) ), the courts have . involved: was pot prohibited by the Section despite the -_ apparent flat prohibition therein. United States v. CI.0., :. 335 U.S. 106 (1948) ; United States v. Painters - ‘Local Union .— No. 481, 172 F.2d 854 (2d-Cir. 1949); United: States v.. ‘Construction and General Laborers Union No. 264, 101 . * Supp. 869 AW D. Mo. 1951). pete. none: of these - ? held that in three cases the political ‘expenditure there decisions instructs tis crema to the nies y : '. * Countless questions - arise. Compare United States v. UAW., 352 U.S. 567, 592. (1957). ‘May a union ‘mail a os mimeograplied statement on political candidates to every : ‘member of the union f May-a union use a radio program, * to express its views on candidates? “Would it .be: different : if almost all the listeners were nfembers of the union? A majority? Half? Less than half? “May a union pay Presi- a dent . George Meany’s plane fare to Missouri to make a. political. speech there? May it do the same for a potential « ’ or actual candidate in: an election? ‘These and — other ; questions: remain unanswered. : - Similarly the. phrase “ in connection with any federal | : election” -has no commonly accepted. Meaning either i in the re statute, any legislative history, « or the dictionary.- The re- ~~ Jation in time to an election, primary or convention, within ‘whieh particular speech or action’ may be held “in connec. tion: -with” the event is. wholly uncertain. Would a unjon. ; | expenditure in 1971 directed. toward a long range educa-_ _ -tional ‘program. designed to shape the outcome of the 1972: . @leetions be. prostribed? Would the preparation and dis- ae tribution by the union of Congressional voting. records demonstrating that certain:legislators had more often voted for ‘the union movement than eertain. others constitute an “expenditure “in connection: with” an election? © » ‘The vagueness and indefiniteness of. the. term “in con- * -nection with any federal election” finds an exaggerated counterpart in the term*“expenditure.” Together, when — -. read literally, the two.terms would interdict virtually every © form of conduct which could be characterized as “m con--. nection with”. a federal election. | | ‘_ « ae IF ie oie ig Se EX 2 ee a Bae. - ° ” . 4 4 2 - eee Jf ¢ SS fe y ie GZ Ps i hl 2. Sete : a ~ tended’ for the. prohibition to stop. Congress itself ga little, indication ‘of the eyils: at which it was aiming during, - the enactment in~1947 of what is now Section 610... (No \ it is” ‘empoistile to. deteeniits sail the lepistaiae i - 3 ee s clearer signals were provided when the predecessor pro- ‘oe ~ -yision was énactéd in 1943.). The lack of discussion in ‘the jae hearings ang reports prior to the Passage ‘of the’ ‘Labor- ce "Management Relations Act’ results in’ there being little ft evidelnte as to the particular dangers which Congress may - y “have felt made this outright ‘prohibition necessary. See,” "United States v. C.1.0., 335°U.S. 106, 132, 134, 150, 151, 153° -. (£948) (Rutledge, Black, Douglas and Murphy, JJ. con- - : curring). Hence, if taken literally, on. its face Section 610° encroaches too much on First Amendment rights; if oe taken literally, it is too vague, : - Not only i is ‘Section: 610: unconstitutional ¢ on its oa but - it is inherently _ vague when applied to the facts of this | ” : _ease. Three judges dissented i in the Court of Appeals over — - its application here, ‘and the decision ‘itself. conflicts with two federal district’ court decisions decided prior to this case. United Statés v.. Teamsters Local 688, 41 LC. 23,380 ; | (ED. Mo. 1960); United States v. Anchorage Cent. Labor _ Council, 193 F. Supp. 504 (D. Alaska 1961). Petitioners . -took skilled legal. advice as to the correct way in establish: ° : ing the Fund. There was nothing more that petitioners could do without rélinquishing * their First Amendment ‘rights. See generally Brief for Petitioners at pp. 84.94. _ ‘ + ee 4 "CONCLUSION es Oe Bor a ech set forth i in “dhe: iia. the acs should q reverse the. josdipeente of ee courts below. — aa “Respectfully submitted, $° ? = Se ie ON * © Lee : ae = Wo. . ; Toe a “ : : Sawrosn' Jay Roske 6° . American Civil Liberties Union q is these : : : 156 Fifth: Avenue >: — cna . New York, N. ¥. 10010 *. ° — Altona for: ete Oinioe