Legal Document

340 U.S. 411 71 Supreme Court Reporter 375 95 L.Ed. 386 ST. JOHN et al.v.WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. Number 302. Argued Jan. 9, 10, 1951. Decided Feb. 26, Mr. Max Raskin, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant. Judge Gilbert Hardgrove, appellee Milwaukee Gas Light company Martin R. Paulsen, respondent Elec. Ry. Transport Malcolm Riley, Eau Claire, and Beatrice Lampert, Madison, Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The parties to this case are same gas workers' union, many officers that companies Board involved in 438, 383, 359. instant proceeding began when, at time strike described appellant workers filed suit a federal district court against declaratory injunctive relief end Public Utility Anti-Strike Law St. 1947, § 111.50 seq., be adjudged invalid reasons successfully advanced 438. 2 District three judges, convened under 28 United States Code KF62 2281, Annotated KF65 U5 did not reach substantive issues, but relied on principles res judicata, holding prior state judgment which appellants were party conclusively barred them from raising any issues pertaining constitutionality Act. In action, brought test statute before had been threatened, sought Act contravened State Constitution Federal Due Process Clause was conflict with labor legislation. Except question undue delegation power constitution, raised as those proceeding. Circuit entered merits all issues. On appeal, affirmed, reached only respect delegation-of-power issue. As common case, held decision constitutional questions presented would premature absence concrete factual record, courts should decide abstract or hypothetical questions. Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers America, Local 18, C.I.O. versus Board, 1949, 255 Wis. 154, 38 North Western Reporter, 2nd Series 692. Certiorari Court, contending such step have futile view adequacy grounds supporting court's refusal adjudicate presented. 3 Following abortive attempt secure final adjudication questions, there occurred circuit issued restraining order, resulting contempt proceeding, us attack validity Act, Commerce Appellees urged they do appellants' further upon act doctrine judicata. Appellees' reason since action went ordered 'affirmed,' by without regard what might said its opinion. adopted line reasoning judicata held, one judge dissenting, attacking Law. 1950, 90 F.Supp. 347. is properly here appeal. 1253, 1253. 4 We need linger over propriety invoking type we direct show Court's interpretation law particular erroneous. proceedings theory That Yet highest hesitate reaching deciding very below could appellants. al., 258 1, 44 547. This reversed day Under circumstances, justice requires barring vacated. 5 But remains whether entitled enforcement prayed. Appellants seek looking future. today's decisions Nos. 329 latter involving 'we find no ground supposing intervention court, order (appellants') rights, will either necessary appropriate.' Douglas City Jeannette, 1943, 319 157, 165, 63 877, 882, 87 1324. For reason, vacated remanded instructions dismiss complaint. 6 It so ordered. 7 Judgment remanded. 8 FRANKFURTER, BURTON, MINTON agree insofar vacating derives 438 dissent set forth their dissenting 9 see

Classification Label: 8