In Re Green
Headline: Labor picketing dispute: Court reversed an Ohio lawyer’s contempt conviction and barred punishment without a hearing when the federal labor board may control the dispute, protecting the right to a chance to be heard.
Holding:
- Protects lawyers and picketers from contempt convictions without a chance to testify.
- Requires a hearing before punishing conduct arguably under the National Labor Relations Board.
- Limits state courts from enforcing injunctions when federal labor remedies may apply.
Summary
Background
A lawyer for a local union was held in contempt after an Ohio court issued an ex parte injunction stopping peaceful picketing in a labor dispute. The union had already filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, and no NLRB hearing had occurred. The lawyer told union officials the injunction was invalid and advised continuing picketing to provoke a test of the order; the union agreed. The lawyer and opposing counsel then agreed to bring four pickets before the judge, who found them in contempt and gave them two days to purge. At the sentencing hearing the lawyer was allowed to speak but was not permitted to testify in his own defense.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether the state court could punish contempt without a hearing when the dispute might fall under the federal labor board’s exclusive authority. Citing prior decisions about due process, the Court held that a person charged with contempt must have a reasonable opportunity to defend, including testifying, and that a state may not convict when the activity is "arguably" within the National Labor Relations Board’s domain without allowing an opportunity to show that federal authority applies. Because the record did not permit the Ohio court to determine that the state was acting within its power, the contempt conviction was reversed.
Real world impact
The decision protects lawyers, union members, and pickets from being punished for contempt without the chance to show that federal labor law governs the dispute. It requires state courts to provide a meaningful hearing before jailing or fining people when the National Labor Relations Board may have exclusive authority, and it reverses the specific Ohio conviction.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Harlan agreed the conviction must be set aside but relied on a different line of cases that sometimes allow contempt for disobeying restraining orders when jurisdiction is not frivolous; he emphasized the lawyer was wrongly denied the chance to prove an agreement to test the order.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?