De Veau v. Braisted
| De Veau v. Braisted | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 1, 1960 Decided June 6, 1960 | |
| Full case name | De Veau v. Braisted |
| Citations | 363 U.S. 144 (more) 80 S. Ct. 1146; 4 L. Ed. 2d 1109; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1863 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 236, 183 N.Y.S.2d 793, 157 N.E.2d 165 (1959); probable jurisdiction noted, 361 U.S. 806 (1959). |
| Holding | |
| An interstate compact restricting convicted felons from holding union office is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, does not violate the 14th Amendment, and is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder under Article One of the Constitution | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Frankfurter, joined by Clark, Whittaker, Stewart |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Warren, Black |
| Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| National Labor Relations Act; Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act; 14th Amendment; U.S. Constitution Article One, Section 10; U.S. Constitution, Article Four, Section 1 | |
De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960), is a 5-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that an interstate compact restricting convicted felons from holding union office is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution.