criminal syndicalism laws
Criminal syndicalism laws were used primarily in the early 1900s to suppress economic and political radicals, anti-war efforts, and to undermine labor movements, such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). These laws made acts intended to incite such change against the U.S. government illegal. Criminal syndicalism statutes had vague definitions that allowed them to override First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and expression. States developed nonspecific criminal syndicalism laws for their jurisdictions that were upheld by the Supreme Court at the time. These laws would regain popularity during times of social unrest, such as World Wars or the Red Scare in the early 1950s. Individuals were prosecuted for peaceful protest or even the perceived social association with certain organizations. The clear and present danger test and bad tendency test were some of the most common legal doctrines arising from criminal syndicalism laws.
Illustrative Cases
- In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of leaders of the Socialist Party who passed out leaflets criticizing the draft by stating such expression violated the clear and present danger test.
- In Pierce v. United States (1920), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of individuals under the Espionage Act for circulating a pamphlet that failed the bad tendency test.
- In Whitney v. California (1927), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a young woman for her membership with the Communist Labor Party of America by finding the group’s goals failed both the clear and present danger and bad tendency tests.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) narrowed the Constitutional scope of criminal syndicalism laws by overruling their broad language and creating a more specific, two-prong test (the Brandenburg test) in order to protect free speech.
[Last reviewed in May of 2026 by the Wex Definitions Team]
Wex