## Facts

- Kansas enacted a 1903 statute making it a crime for an employer to require, as a condition of employment, that an employee agree not to join or remain in a labor organization.
- T. B. Coppage, a railroad superintendent, demanded that an employee, Hedges, sign an agreement not to remain a union member as a condition of continued employment.
- Hedges refused to resign from the union, and Coppage discharged him.
- Kansas prosecuted Coppage for “coercing” an employee by imposing a nonunion condition of employment.
- Coppage was convicted, fined, and faced imprisonment as the alternative to payment.
- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- Coppage sought review, arguing the statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, criminalize an employer’s requirement that an at-will adult employee agree not to join or remain in a labor union as a condition of employment.
2. Whether treating an employer’s insistence on such a term as criminal “coercion” unconstitutionally interferes with liberty of contract.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held the statute unconstitutional as applied to an at-will employment relationship between competent adults because it violated liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court reasoned that if an employer may lawfully discharge an at-will employee for union membership, the employer may also insist on a nonunion promise as a condition of hiring or continued employment.
- The Court rejected the state’s characterization of the employer’s conduct as “coercion,” concluding the statute impermissibly criminalized ordinary bargaining in an at-will employment setting.
- The Court concluded the law was not justified as a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power on the asserted ground of correcting inequality in bargaining power.

## Legal Principles

- Liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes freedom of contract, including contracts for personal employment, subject to valid police-power limits.
- A state may not convert ordinary, lawful contractual bargaining into criminal “coercion” by legislative labeling where no independent unlawful duress is shown.
- In an at-will employment relationship, a party may condition hiring or continued employment on terms related to grounds the party could otherwise use to terminate the relationship, absent a valid police-power justification.
- The constitutionality of a statute is judged by its operation and effect as applied, not by its title, form, or stated legislative purpose.
- A measure that is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be validated by being packaged with other regulations or by being enacted under a title referencing proper police-power aims.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Kansas’s criminal prohibition on “yellow-dog” contracts as applied, holding that punishing an employer for requiring a nonunion condition of at-will employment violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty of contract and could not be sustained as a proper exercise of the police power.


Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)