Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
398 U.S. 281 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283) creates an absolute prohibition on federal courts enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three narrowly construed statutory exceptions.
Facts:
- The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) had a labor dispute with the Florida East Coast Railway Co. (FEC).
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL) was not a party to this dispute but owned and operated the Moncrief Yard, a switching yard near Jacksonville, Florida, which handled FEC cars.
- In 1967, to support its dispute with FEC, BLE began picketing the Moncrief Yard, encouraging ACL employees not to handle any FEC cars.
- ACL sought to stop this 'secondary' picketing activity at its yard.
Procedural Posture:
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction against picketing by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE).
- The U.S. District Court denied ACL's request for a temporary restraining order in 1967.
- ACL then immediately filed a suit in a Florida state court and successfully obtained an injunction prohibiting the BLE's picketing.
- Two years later, after a relevant Supreme Court decision, BLE filed a motion in the Florida state court to dissolve the injunction, which the state judge refused.
- BLE then returned to the U.S. District Court and requested an injunction to prohibit ACL from enforcing the state court's injunction.
- The U.S. District Court granted BLE's request, enjoining the enforcement of the state court order.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court's prior order denying an injunction against union picketing, which was based on the Norris-LaGuardia Act and did not explicitly decide the issue of federal preemption, justify a later federal injunction against a state court's injunction of the same picketing under the 'necessary in aid of its jurisdiction' or 'to protect or effectuate its judgments' exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. The injunction against the state court was not justified under the statutory exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. The Act establishes a clear-cut prohibition on federal courts interfering with state court proceedings, which rests on the fundamental constitutional independence of the States and their courts. The exceptions must be construed narrowly. The 1967 federal court order merely determined that the federal court itself was barred from issuing an injunction due to the Norris-LaGuardia Act; it did not constitute a judgment on the merits that the union had a federally protected right to picket that preempted state law. Therefore, the later federal injunction was not necessary 'to protect or effectuate' that prior, limited order. Furthermore, the injunction was not 'necessary in aid of' the federal court's jurisdiction because the state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction, and the state court's action did not impair the federal court's ability to consider the case. A lower federal court cannot sit in direct review of a state court decision; the proper path for relief from an erroneous state court ruling is through the state appellate system and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the injunction was not justified, but this holding implies no retreat from the substantive labor law principles established in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. The question of whether the union's picketing is federally protected from state interference is a separate issue to be decided on review of the state court's final judgment, not through a federal injunction.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The district court's 1969 injunction was justified because it was necessary 'to protect or effectuate its judgments.' The 1967 order was not merely a jurisdictional refusal; it was a decision that the BLE had a federally protected right to engage in self-help and that its picketing at Moncrief Yard was a proper exercise of that right. By necessary implication, this federally protected right could not be subverted by resort to state court proceedings. The state court injunction rendered the federal court's declaration of rights wholly nugatory, and the district judge, who is in the best position to interpret his own order, correctly issued the 1969 injunction to preserve the integrity of his 1967 judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principles of federalism and comity by establishing a very high bar for federal court interference with state court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act. It clarifies that the statutory exceptions are not broad equitable principles but narrow, explicit authorizations that cannot be enlarged by loose construction. The decision forces litigants who are unhappy with a state court's ruling on a federal issue to exhaust their appeals within the state system and then seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than using a lower federal court for a collateral attack. It solidifies the 'relitigation exception' as applying only to issues actually litigated and decided by the federal court, not issues that could have been decided or were merely implied.
