Thornhill v. Alabama
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 2, 1938 Decided April 28, 1940
Full case name	Thornhill v. State of Alabama
Citations	310U.S.88 (more) 60 S. Ct. 736; 84L. Ed. 1093; 1940U.S. LEXIS 1153
Case history
Prior	28 Ala.App. 527; 189 So. 913 (1923)
Holding
The free speech clause protects speech about the facts and circumstances of a labor dispute.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices James C. McReynolds · Harlan F. Stone Owen Roberts · Hugo Black Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Case opinions
Majority	Murphy, joined by Hughes, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
Dissent	McReynolds

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), is aUS labor law case of aUnited States Supreme Court. It reversed the conviction of the president of a local union for violating anAlabama statute that prohibited only labor picketing. Thornhill was peaceably picketing his employer during an authorized strike when he was arrested and charged. In reaching its decision, Associate JusticeFrank Murphy wrote for the Supreme Court that thefree speech clause protects speech about the facts and circumstances of a labor dispute. The statute in the case prohibited all labor picketing, butThornhill added peaceful labor picketing to the area protected by free speech.^[1]

Byron Thornhill was convicted of "loitering orpicketing" near a place of business, pursuant to § 3448 of the 1923Code of Alabama.^[2] Thornhill had been charged with loitering near the Brown Wood Preserving Company with the "intent or purpose of influencing others" to interfere with lawful business during a strike by a local union affiliated with theAmerican Federation of Labor. After his conviction in theInferior Court ofTuscaloosa County, he appealed to theCircuit Court of Tuscaloosa County. He was originally fined "$100 and costs," but was sentenced to prison for 59 days after not paying. After he failed his appeal, the circuit court increased the prison time to 73 days. Furthermore, thecourt of appeals affirmed the rulings of the two lower courts. TheAlabama Supreme Court denied Thornhill's petition forcertiorari, but the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted the petition.

1. The State of Alabama, by its Solicitor, complains of Byron Thornhill that, within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution he did without just cause or legal excuse therefor, go near to or loiter about the premises or place of business of another person, firm, corporation, or association of people, to-wit: the Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation, engaged in a lawful business, for the purpose or with the intent of influencing or inducing other persons not to trade with, buy from, sell to, have business dealings with, or be employed by the said Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or interfering with or injuring the lawful business or enterprise of the said Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation.^[2]
2. The State of Alabama, by its Solicitor, complains of Byron Thornhill that, within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution he did without just cause or legal excuse therefor, go near to or loiter about the premises or place of business of another person, firm, corporation, or association of people, to-wit: the Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation, engaged in a lawful business, for the purpose or with the intent of influencing or inducing other persons not to trade with, buy from, sell to, have business dealings with, or be employed by the said Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation.^[2]
3. The State of Alabama, by its Solicitor, complains of Byron Thornhill that, within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution he did picket the works or place of business of another person, firm, corporation, or association of people, to-wit, the Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or interfering with or injuring the lawful business or enterprise of the said Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc., a corporation.^[2]

The majority opinion reversed the lower courts' rulings by citing the freedoms ofspeech and thepress granted in thefirst amendment, and secured by thefourteenth. The court also found the Alabama statute to be invalid on its face.^[2]

Implicit inThornhill was the idea that picketing could be curtailed if the picketers marched with signs that went beyond the issues in the particular labor dispute; this would come up in later cases.^[3]

• US labor law
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 310

• St. Antoine, Theodore J.,Justice Frank Murphy and American labor law,Michigan Law Review (100 MLR 1900, June 1, 2002).

• Works related toThornhill v. Alabama at Wikisource
• Text ofThornhill v. Alabama,310 U.S. 88 (1940) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist
• Code of Alabama 1975

• 1940 in United States case law
• United States Supreme Court cases
• United States Free Speech Clause case law
• United States labor case law
• 1940 in Alabama
• Legal history of Alabama
• Tuscaloosa County, Alabama
• American Federation of Labor
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
• 1940 in labor relations

• Use American English from September 2025
• All Wikipedia articles written in American English
• Use mdy dates from September 2023
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata