Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1926

Connally v. General Construction Co.

269 U.S. 385 | 46 S. Ct. 126 | 70 L. Ed. 322 | 1926 U.S. LEXIS 929

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a criminal wage law violates due process when it leaves both the required wage and the relevant geographic area so uncertain that regulated parties must guess at what the law demands.

Background

Oklahoma required contractors performing public work to pay laborers, workmen, and mechanics at least the “current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed.” Violations carried severe criminal penalties: a fine, imprisonment, and a separate offense for every day of noncompliance.

General Construction Co., a state bridge contractor, paid its laborers under eight-hour-day agreements. The state Labor Commissioner asserted that the company’s $3.20 daily wage for some laborers fell below the current local rate of $3.60 near Cleveland, Oklahoma, and threatened enforcement. But the Commissioner’s own wage survey showed substantial variation, from $3.00 to $4.05 per day among area employers, while the company itself paid different laborers between $3.20 and $6.50 per day.

The company sued state and county officials to enjoin criminal enforcement, alleging that neither “current rate of per diem wages” nor “locality” gave fair notice of what wage the statute required. A three-judge federal district court granted an interlocutory injunction, taking the complaint’s allegations as true. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the phrase “current rate of per diem wages” supplied an ascertainable standard of criminal liability consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

No. The phrase was unconstitutionally vague because it did not identify a definite wage that a contractor had to pay.

Reasoning

A penal statute must tell persons subject to it what conduct will expose them to punishment. If people of ordinary intelligence must guess at a statute’s meaning and may reasonably differ over its application, the statute fails the basic due-process requirement of fair notice.

The Court distinguished statutes upheld despite some imprecision because they used technical terms, settled common-law concepts, or other language that furnished a workable standard. Here, by contrast, the statute did not provide a standard by which a contractor could determine the minimum lawful wage before risking prosecution.

“Current rate of wages” did not denote one fixed sum. As the allegations and the Commissioner’s survey illustrated, wages in the relevant area varied by employer, the kind of work, and worker efficiency. The phrase could encompass a range containing minimum, maximum, and intermediate rates, but the statute did not say which one was the required floor.

A court could not cure that defect by selecting the lowest wage, the highest wage, an intermediate wage, or an average. Each choice would be a judicial guess about legislative intent and might defeat rather than carry out the legislature’s purpose. Criminal liability could not rest on that kind of after-the-fact selection.

Issue #2

Whether the statutory term “locality where the work is performed” was sufficiently definite to define the geographic area for determining the required wage.

Holding

No. “Locality” added an independent and fatal uncertainty because it did not establish the geographic boundaries of the relevant wage market.

Reasoning

The Oklahoma criminal court of appeals had described “locality” as a place, vicinity, neighborhood, or area near the place of work. The Supreme Court accepted that description but concluded that it did not make the statute definite; each of those terms remains elastic and may refer to an area measured in rods or in miles.

The geographic uncertainty mattered because wage rates could differ from one section to another. A contractor could not know in advance which employers, communities, or wage practices belonged within the relevant area, while a jury could later reach its own conclusion about the boundaries.

Thus, enforcement depended on varying impressions of jurors rather than on a fixed statutory meaning, a statutory definition, or a reliable interpretive guide. Due process does not permit severe and cumulative criminal penalties to turn on such an equivocal standard.

Concurrences

Justice Holmes

Reasoning

Justice Holmes agreed with affirmance but did not join the Court’s broader vagueness analysis. In his view, the company was not violating the statute under any criterion available in the Cleveland vicinity, because the Commissioner’s own investigation showed daily wages ranging from $3.00 to $4.05.

The company paid twenty-five laborers between $3.20 and $6.50 per day, and all but six received at least $3.60. On those facts, Holmes concluded that the threatened enforcement could not be sustained without deciding the statute’s validity on the majority’s broader ground.

Justice Brandeis

Reasoning

Justice Brandeis joined Justice Holmes’s narrower ground for affirmance. The wage evidence collected by the Commissioner showed a wide local range rather than a single rate that demonstrated the company’s noncompliance.

Because the company’s pay scale ranged from $3.20 to $6.50, with most employees earning at least $3.60, Brandeis concluded that the company had not been shown to violate the statute under any available local measure.