InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.

The Court held that a labor union's publication of a statement that advocated for its members to vote for a certain candidate for Congress did not violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act.

335 U.S. 106 · No. 695 · 1947 term · Vinson Court

Decided Jun 21, 1948 · argued Apr 28, 1948

Economic activity · Corruption, governmental or governmental regulation of other than as in campaign spending

Majority opinion: Stanley Reed

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed. United States lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U.S. 106 (1948), is a US labor law decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a labor union's publication of a statement that advocated for its members to vote for a certain candidate for Congress did not violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1947 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianBlackRutledgeMurphyDouglasReedVinsonBurtonFrankfurterR. Jackson

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
United StatesUnited States
Respondent
Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.Union, labor organization, or official
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Labor-Management Relations
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 21, 1948DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. United States lost.
  2. Apr 28, 1948ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

24 other argued cases since 1946 on corruption, governmental or governmental regulation of other than as in campaign spending, newest first.

  1. Snyder v. United States144 S. Ct. 1947Jun 26, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1947Economic activity6–36–3 band

  2. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar, Julio, et al579 U.S. 176Jun 16, 2016 · 579 U.S. 176Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  3. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter575 U.S. 650May 26, 2015 · 575 U.S. 650Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  4. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California526 U.S. 398Apr 27, 1999 · 526 U.S. 398Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  5. John H. Evans, Jr. v. United States504 U.S. 255May 26, 1992 · 504 U.S. 255Economic activity6–36–3 band

  6. Robert L. McCormick v. United States500 U.S. 257May 23, 1991 · 500 U.S. 257Economic activity6–36–3 band
  7. Lawrence H. Crandon, et al. v. United States494 U.S. 152Feb 27, 1990 · 494 U.S. 152Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  8. McNally v. United States483 U.S. 350Jun 24, 1987 · 483 U.S. 350Economic activity7–27–2 band

  9. Dixson v. United States465 U.S. 482Feb 22, 1984 · 465 U.S. 482Economic activity5–45–4 band
  10. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Sadlowski et al.457 U.S. 102Jun 14, 1982 · 457 U.S. 102Economic activity5–45–4 band
  11. Helstoski v. Meanor, United States District Judge, et al.442 U.S. 500Jun 18, 1979 · 442 U.S. 500Economic activity7–18–1 band
  12. United States v. Helstoski442 U.S. 477Jun 18, 1979 · 442 U.S. 477Economic activity6–27–2 band
  13. United States v. Bornstein et al.423 U.S. 303Jan 14, 1976 · 423 U.S. 303Economic activity5–36–3 band
  14. United States v. Brewster408 U.S. 501Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 501Economic activity6–36–3 band
  15. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 et al. v. United States407 U.S. 385Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 385Economic activity6–27–2 band
  16. United States v. Neifert-White Co.390 U.S. 228Mar 5, 1968 · 390 U.S. 228Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  17. United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co.385 U.S. 138Dec 5, 1966 · 385 U.S. 138Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  18. United States v. Johnson383 U.S. 169Feb 24, 1966 · 383 U.S. 169Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
  19. United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.364 U.S. 520Jan 9, 1961 · 364 U.S. 520Economic activity6–36–3 band
  20. Howard v. Lyons et al.360 U.S. 593Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 593Economic activity6–36–3 band
  21. Barr v. Matteo et al.360 U.S. 564Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 564Economic activity5–45–4 band

  22. United States v. Shirey359 U.S. 255Apr 20, 1959 · 359 U.S. 255Economic activity5–45–4 band
  23. United States v. Rumely345 U.S. 41Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 41Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
  24. United States v. Hood et al.343 U.S. 148Mar 31, 1952 · 343 U.S. 148Economic activity5–45–4 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.