Document: 347 U.S. 439 74 S.Ct. 623 98 L.Ed. 826 LINEHAN et al.v.WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR al. STATEN ISLAND LOADERS, Inc. v. WATERFRONT Nos. 557 & 558. Supreme Court of the United States April 12, 1954 Rehearing Denied June 1, 1954. See 994, 849. PER CURIAM. 1 The motions to affirm are granted and judgments, 116 F.Supp. 683, 117 308 affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 3 case illustrates what I fear is a growing practice diluting Act Congress which gives us jurisdiction appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1253 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. carved out group cases, this one, that comes here as right not dependent, petitions for certiorari, on vote four Justices nine an adjudication by merits controversy. In recent years has more dismissed or affirmed appeals, no opportunity counsel make oral argument without any opinion Court. 4 These appeals should be added list. 5 New York Jersey made Compact, approved Congress, regulation employment waterfront York.1 agency through plan effected Waterfront Commission, composed one representative Jersey. It charge all longshoremen. A longshoremen's register established; can employed unless he register. Commission 'may in its discretion' deny applicant 6 —if been convicted treason, murder, manslaughter, illegal possession firearms, possessing burglar's instruments, receiving stolen property, unlawful entry building, aiding escape from prison, unlawfully distributing habit-forming drugs, 7 Communist teaches creed, 8 judgment his presence would constitute 'a danger public peace safety.' 9 Two main questions at once suggested. 10 First, standards men deprived work constitutional? This new question never ruled. May state prescribe have relevancy competency perform work? Under Compact man who, reckless moment runs over person car kills him apparently stands disqualified employment. So does Communist, whether cloak dagger variety paler type. Are those criteria An individual who such reason could raise question. But if standard itself do work, why may tested very threshold? 11 substantial our cases answer. We write slate fairly clean, except remote analogies. 12 Second, these provisions disqualify unconstitutional bill attainder? few ago struck certain federal employees payroll because thought they were 'subversives.' held disqualification judicial trial was attainder therefore unconstitutional. Lovett, 328 303, 66 1073, 90 1252. Here State legislatures, approval done precisely that. come close it defining proscribed class barring them employment—again trial. Cf. Garner Board Public Works City Los Angeles, 341 716, 71 909, 95 1317. 13 Perhaps way found sustain challenged Compact. so construed save rights. motion dismiss (26 pages long) reply (51 No. only stir profound put rest. 14 work—which goes heart life—is stake If we conclude constitutional, give reasons interests will protected. expected much but frivolous coming appeal. McKinney's N.Y.Unconsolidated Laws, 6700—aa seq.; N.J.Stat.Ann. 32:23—1 Aug. 1953, 67 Stat. 541, U.S.Code Cong. Adm.News p. 605.

Category: 2