Document: 369 U.S. 689 82 S.Ct. 1114 8 L.Ed.2d 198 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Merritt W. GREEN, II, Petitioner. No. 312. Argued April 9, 1962. Decided May 21, Green, Toledo, Ohio, petitioner. Ben Neidlinger, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner, member Ohio bar, has been held in contempt state court and sentenced to jail fined. He brought this habeas corpus proceeding courts challenging, inter alia, their jurisdiction punish him conduct question. was denied relief by Supreme Court on divided vote, 172 St. 269, 175 N.E.2d 59. We granted petition certiorari, 368 894, 171, 7 92. 2 The matter dispute arose out management-labor controversy. employer sought obtained from an injunction against picketing. Petitioner had retained International Longshoremen's Association represent local involved labor when advised clerk that requested, he said would be ready any time hearing. injunction, however, issued ex parte. immediately asked hearing; but none granted. At parte issued, union file with National Labor Relations Board unfair practice charge, no hearing it. 3 believing under Rev.Code, 1954, § 2727.06 restraining order invalid because it without controversy properly one not court, officials best way contest continue picketing and, if pickets were contempt, appeal or test commitment corpus. agreed course action continued. 4 again obtain his motion vacate order. But judge could week. Thereupon petitioner opposing counsel submit four stipulate facts. 5 produced following day them giving two days purge themselves. end another held; did made clear at earlier who risking contempt. disobeying resisting 'a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, command' court. 2705.02. 'While opportunity given heard, allowed testify own behalf, ruling only purpose sentence petitioner.' 6 There Appeals filed; undisputed facts showed engaged interstate commerce, charge involving same as pending before Board, which enjoined peaceful Respondent argues between attempt organize workers refusal bargain enforcement 'no-strike' clause collective bargaining agreement left Congress either federal (Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972) courts. Teamsters Local Lucas Flour Co., 95, 571, 593. filed based good faith enforce signed unauthorized agents. 9 In re Oliver, 333 257, 275, 68 499, 508, 92 L.Ed. 682, procedural due process 'requires charged charges him, have reasonable meet defense explanation, right represented counsel, chance call other witnesses explanation.' 10 guilty misconduct fell within category acts constitute open where immediate punishment is necessary prevent 'demoralization court's authority' (id., 508) types considered Brown United States, 359 41, 79 539, 609. question whether trenching domain. issue thus tendered emphasizes important function performs. It impossible determine record exclusively principles San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 236, 773, 775 Amalgamated Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach etc. Wisconsin Employment 340 383, 71 359, 95 364. know bounds citing person violating such For, supra, held, power hold contempt1 enter reason pre-emption. Even we assume law, violates requirements Fourteenth Amendment2 convict nature establish acting field reserved agency. When activity 'arguably' subject States must defer its 'exclusive competence,' 'if danger interference national policy averted.' 245, 780. 11 Reversed. 12 FRANKFURTER WHITE took part consideration decision case. 13 HARLAN, whom CLARK joins, dissenting concurring part. 14 I agree conviction set aside, reasons 15 Mine Workers, 330 258, 289 295, 67 677, 693, 696 disobedience temporary whose claim over underlying frivolous may punished criminal even determined lacking. This holding new, Shipp, 203 563, 27 165, 51 319; Howat Kansas, 258 181, 42 277, 66 550 departed since. law Contractors Ass'n Hod Carriers' Union, 108 App. 395, 162 155. ground below, 274—275, 59, 62—63, relied here However, gives passing glance decision. 16 alleged posting 'and calling strike so doing' violated no-strike representatives claimed authority contract. assertion redress violation recently upheld Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 502, 519, 483 can hardly deemed does become argument might powerless case, see Box, 514, n. 8, 526, arguable contract concluded case breach 174, 101, 593 makes rule stated 779, 775, ousting dealing tort activities arguably Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 157, 158, apply agreement. State Flour, although there protected forbidden provision interpretation fairly disputed, still protected. 17 Accordingly, unless distinguishable, instance though ultimately lacked suit itself. seeks find distinction fact whereas Bus Employees 364 found preempted pendente lite aside. involve principle neither nor argued here, nothing Court's suggests reinstate original basis followed Wisconsin. Moreover, present enlighten us why should 'preemption' Indeed, supposed preserve status quo resolution disputed jurisdiction, considerations favor allowing take situation are least strong, stronger. 18 suggested behind preemption cases frustrated applicable this. doctrine cannot well thought stronger than Norris-LaGuardia Act. despite commands Act—a statute specifically directed towards proscribing issuance injunctive orders disputes.* 19 Petitioner's ancillary admitted scarcely serves explain assumed entire depended Constitution violated, apart validity attacked, alternative holding. Whether not, respect orderly requires obedience until debatable authoritatively decided. 309—310, 703, 704 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). limit quo. so, act jurisdictional surely depend upon begun hour complaint begin later. 20 Nevertheless, different petitioner's comport process. For shows deprived prove proceedings among himself, adversary, appropriate basic lawsuit. offered testify—and proffered testimony appears disputed—that 'I convinced both Judge Ragan (opposing counsel) aware consented bring these men essential matters express testing matter.' Yet testimony. 21 Appeals, 47 L.R.R.M. 2230, 2233, vast difference defendant openly contumacious defiant disobeys pursuant understanding issues. If contentions true, after agreement, therefore heard. 682. 22 On One companion 438, Gas obeying (Wisconsin Milwaukee Light Wis. 1, 44 N.W.2d 547) reversed. 386, 399, 361, 368. written Chief Vinson also wrote 91 884. latter presented pre-emption where, prevail, complete. Cf. Ex Bradley, Wall. 364, 375, 214; Hovey Elliott, 167 409, 841, 215. * very now advanced majority Murphy, dissenting, (330 341, 719): 'But unique relations, type definitely proscribed. defendants having void close our eyes expressed will whole history equitable restraints disputes. disregard compel obey require tested sanction use break strikes—which precisely what wanted avoid.'

Category: 3