United States v. United Mine Workers of America
330 U.S. 258 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Norris-LaGuardia Act, which restricts the power of federal courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes, does not apply to the United States government when it acts as an employer. Furthermore, court orders must be obeyed until they are reversed through proper legal proceedings, and a party's disobedience can be punished as criminal contempt even if the issuing court is ultimately found to lack jurisdiction over the case.
Facts:
- In May 1946, pursuant to a Presidential Executive Order under the War Labor Disputes Act, the United States government seized the nation's bituminous coal mines to avert a production stoppage.
- Secretary of the Interior J.A. Krug, acting as the Coal Mines Administrator, entered into a collective bargaining agreement (the Krug-Lewis Agreement) with John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW).
- On October 21, 1946, Lewis asserted a right under a prior agreement to reopen negotiations on the Krug-Lewis Agreement.
- The government denied that the agreement could be reopened, stating its terms were binding for the full period of government possession.
- On November 15, 1946, after failed negotiations, Lewis sent a notice to Secretary Krug unilaterally terminating the Krug-Lewis Agreement, effective at midnight on November 20, 1946.
- Lewis circulated copies of this termination letter to the UMW's members for their 'official information.'
- Consistent with the miners' 'no contract, no work' policy, a nationwide strike began on November 18 and was in full effect by midnight on November 20, idling the majority of the nation's coal production.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 18, 1946, the United States sued the UMW and John L. Lewis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment.
- On the same day, the plaintiff requested and the District Court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the defendants from continuing a strike notice.
- On November 21, after a strike began, the United States filed a petition for a rule to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the TRO.
- The defendants filed a motion to discharge the rule, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
- The District Court overruled the defendants' motion, holding the Act did not apply.
- Following a trial on the contempt charge, the court found both defendants guilty of civil and criminal contempt.
- On December 4, the District Court fined Lewis $10,000 and the UMW $3,500,000 and issued a preliminary injunction.
- The defendants filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari prior to judgment in the Circuit Court, which the Supreme Court granted.
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 the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving labor disputes, apply to the United States government when it has seized an industry and is acting as the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Vinson
No. The Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply when the United States is the employer in a labor dispute. The Court reasoned that there is a well-established canon of statutory construction that statutes which divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. The Act's text, including its declaration of policy contrasting the 'individual unorganized worker' with 'owners of property,' and its use of the term 'persons,' does not suggest an intent to include the government. The legislative history further indicates that Congress did not intend the Act to apply to the government in its capacity as an employer. Alternatively, the Court held that even if the Act applied, the District Court had the power to issue a temporary order to preserve the status quo while it determined its own jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of United States v. Shipp, such an order must be obeyed until properly reversed, and disobedience is punishable as criminal contempt regardless of the final determination of jurisdiction.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
Yes. While finding that the legislative history of the War Labor Disputes Act demonstrates Congress's clear intent to withhold injunctive power from the government in seized industries, making the Norris-LaGuardia Act applicable, he concurred in the judgment. He reasoned that the District Court's order must be obeyed under the principle of United States v. Shipp. The question of jurisdiction was not frivolous, and a court must have the power to preserve existing conditions while it determines its own authority. To allow a party to defy a court's order during this deliberation process would be to reject the judicial process itself and undermine the rule of law.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Black and Justice Douglas
No. Concurring with the majority that the Norris-LaGuardia Act is inapplicable because it was intended for private labor disputes, not those involving government employees, which the miners became upon seizure. They dissented, however, from the imposition of unconditional criminal fines. They argued that the proper remedy was a coercive civil sanction, such as a conditional fine, which is the 'least possible power adequate to the end proposed.' A conditional fine would have compelled obedience without resorting to summary criminal punishment for past conduct, which should be reserved for more persistent defiance.
Dissenting - Justice Murphy
Yes. The Norris-LaGuardia Act is applicable because the underlying controversy is a private labor dispute between mine operators and miners, and government seizure does not alter this fundamental character. The Act's prohibition on injunctions is absolute in such cases, regardless of which party seeks it. Since the Act explicitly stripped the court of jurisdiction to issue the restraining order, the order was void from its inception. Therefore, violating a void order cannot constitute contempt, and the Shipp doctrine is inapplicable where Congress has so clearly and completely removed jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Rutledge
Yes. The Norris-LaGuardia Act is applicable, and the contempt conviction should be reversed. He argued that the legislative history of the War Labor Disputes Act shows Congress deliberately withheld injunctive power. As the order was issued without jurisdiction, it was void and could not support a contempt conviction. He also forcefully dissented on procedural grounds, arguing that the commingling of civil and criminal contempt proceedings violated due process by failing to provide the defendants with clear notice of the charges against them. Finally, he found the fines to be unconstitutionally excessive and arbitrarily determined.
Analysis:
This decision established two critical precedents in American law. First, it created a significant exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, affirming the federal government's power to use injunctions to stop strikes in industries it has seized under emergency powers, thereby treating the government differently than private employers. Second, it powerfully solidified the 'collateral bar rule,' which prevents a party from challenging the validity of a court order as a defense in a criminal contempt proceeding for violating that order. This holding mandates that parties must challenge court orders through the appellate process, not through disobedience, strengthening the authority of trial courts to maintain the status quo while complex jurisdictional questions are resolved.
