During the entire time under consideration in this case, the Brotherhood maintained that the employment rights of the plaintiff and the class represented by him are governed by the said collective bargaining agreement dated February 18, 1941.

The Court commented, "the minority would be left with no means of protecting their interests or, indeed, their right to earn a livelihood by pursuing the occupation in which they are employed.

[7] Justice Murphy commented that "the utter disregard for the dignity and the well-being of colored citizens shown by this record is so pronounced as to demand the invocation of constitutional condemnation.

"[8] He did not hesitate to criticize the majority for failing to candidly confront the issues that Houston raised; "to decide the case and to analyze the statute solely upon the basis of legal niceties, while remaining mute and placid as to the obvious and oppressive deprivation of constitutional guarantees, is to make the judicial function something less than it should be.

"[9] Justice Murphy even advocated that a clearer and stronger message be sent by the Court: No statutory interpretation can erase this ugly example of economic cruelty against colored citizens of the United States.

[11] By winning this case before the US Supreme Court, Attorney Houston made a unique contribution for the rights of minorities in the area of labor law.

His involvement in the issues facing African-American union members began with the Colored Railway Trainmen and Locomotive Firemen's Local No.5.

The facts presented to him by Tunstall v. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen were "reflective of the ubiquity of discrimination" put against African Americans in unions.