Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Lathrop v. Donohue — Dissent

I do not believe that the practice of law is a 'privilege' which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Lathrop v. Donohue — Dissent

I cannot agree that a contention arising from the abridgment of First Amendment freedoms which results from compelled support of detested views can properly be characterized as of a 'chimerical nature' or, in the words of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as involving nothing more than a 'slight inconvenience.' [11] Quite the contrary, I can think of few plainer, more direct abridgments of the freedoms of the First Amendment than to compel persons to support candidates, parties, ideologies or causes that they are against.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Lathrop v. Donohue — Dissent

Can a State, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, force a person to support financially the activities of an organization in support of view to which he is opposed? Thus, the best, if not the only, reason I can think of for not resolving that question now is that a decision on the constitutional question in this case would make it impossible for the Court to rely upon the doctrine of avoidance with respect to that same constitutional question to justify its strained interpretation of the Railway Labor Act in the Street case.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature