Commonwealth v. Hunt was a landmark legal decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The SJC has the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in the Western Hemisphere.-History:...

 on the subject of labor unions. Before this decision, based on Commonwealth v. Pullis

Commonwealth v. Pullis

Commonwealth v. Pullis of 1806, was the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. It decided that striking workers were illegal conspirators.-Facts:...

, labor unions which attempted to 'close' or create a unionized workplace could be charged with conspiracy

Conspiracy (crime)

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...

. However, in March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw

Lemuel Shaw

Lemuel Shaw was an American jurist who served as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court...

 ruled that unions were legal organizations and had the right to organize a strike.

Facts

In 1839, the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society called a strike against all employers who hired non-union members. The leaders of the society, including one Mr. Hunt, were arrested and charged with conspiracy

Conspiracy (crime)

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...

. Mr. Hunt's defense was that the union's attempted organization and strike was in fact lawful.

Judgment

The municipal courts for Boston found all the defendants guilty, but on appeal, argued by the radical defense attorney Robert Rantoul, Chief Justice Shaw declared that the act of unionization and recognition of that union through strike was legal unless the methods to coerce workers to strike were illegal. Since no threat of force was posed by the union, Shaw sided with the defendants and the Court went with him. The Court established that trade unions were not necessarily criminal or conspiring organizations if they did not advocate violence or illegal activities in their attempts to gain recognition through striking.

Significance

Commonwealth v. Hunt legalized the existence of trade organizations, though trade unions would continue to be harassed legally through anti-trust suits and injunctions. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932

Norris-LaGuardia Act

The Norris–La Guardia Act was a 1932 United States federal law that banned yellow-dog contracts, barred federal courts from issuing injunctions against nonviolent labor disputes, and created a positive right of noninterference by employers against workers joining trade unions...

 and the Wagner Act of 1935

National Labor Relations Act

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in...

recognized labor's right to organize unions, but unions were not fully recognized as legal until later on. Though judges throughout the decade would become more anti-union, Commonwealth v. Hunt served as a legitimizer for trade unions.