Skip to content

Record

Court opinion

1954-04-12

CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion

Linehan v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 347 U.S. 439 (1954)

The Supreme Court summarily affirms judgments upholding the Waterfront Commission Compact. Justices Douglas and Black dissent from the summary treatment and describe the compact's registration of longshoremen.

Date: 1954-04-12
Kind: court-opinion
Source: CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion
Retrieved: 2026-10-12
Docket: No. 557
Rights: Opinion of a United States court. Works of the federal judiciary are in the public domain in the United States. The text was read on CourtListener.

Supreme Court of the United States, No. 557 (with a companion case), decided April 12, 1954 (the opinion header’s date). The whole opinion of the Court reads: “The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.”

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, dissented. He objected to what he called “a growing practice of the Court of diluting the Act of Congress which gives us jurisdiction” by disposing of substantial appeals summarily, and described the compact’s scheme: a register of longshoremen, discretionary refusal of registration on grounds that include certain convictions, and a Commission of one member from each state.

The decision itself says nothing about crime on the waterfront. The Court’s full treatment of the compact’s union-office bar came in De Veau v. Braisted (1960). The compact is 67 Stat. 541.

itemWaterfront Commission Compact: 67 Stat. 541 (Public Law 252, Chapter 407), 12 August 1953The 1953 Act of Congress consenting to the New York-New Jersey Waterfront Commission Compact. In the compact's findings the two states declare that hiring on the Port of New York waterfront was marked by "corrupt hiring practices" by persons who "are frequently criminals."itemDe Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960)The Supreme Court upheld § 8 of the New York Waterfront Commission Act of 1953, which barred a waterfront union from collecting dues while an officer convicted of a felony remained in office.itemMurphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)Witnesses at a Waterfront Commission hearing on a work stoppage at the Hoboken piers, granted state immunity, refuse to answer for fear of federal prosecution. The Supreme Court holds that the privilege against self-incrimination protects a state witness against incrimination under federal law.itemCarson v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 73 F.3d 24 (3d Cir. 1995)The Third Circuit rejects a convicted International Longshoremen's Association officer's Supremacy Clause challenge to section 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act, holding the claim barred by De Veau v. Braisted.itemWaterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Construction and Marine Equipment Co., 928 F. Supp. 1388 (D.N.J. 1996)The district court grants the Waterfront Commission a preliminary injunction against a company working as an unlicensed stevedore, and recounts the 1953 compact's purpose and Congress's consent in Public Law 83-252.