Times-Mirror Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Headline: Court pauses enforcement of a Ninth Circuit order pending a petition for Supreme Court review, conditioning the temporary stay on a $5,000 bond and a March 28 filing deadline for the petition, protecting the National Labor Relations Board.
Holding:
- Pauses enforcement of the Ninth Circuit order while petitioners seek Supreme Court review.
- Requires petitioners to post a $5,000 bond approved by a Ninth Circuit judge.
- Allows the National Labor Relations Board to recover damages or costs if harmed by the stay.
Summary
Background
The Chief Justice, with approval of all Associate Justices, met in Special Term on March 15, 1947 to consider an application from counsel for the parties seeking review. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had entered an order on March 10, 1947, and the petitioners asked the Supreme Court to stay execution and enforcement of that order while they sought further review.
Reasoning
The Court granted a stay of execution and enforcement of the Ninth Circuit’s March 10 order, but only if the petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on or before March 28, 1947. The stay will continue if the Court grants review, remaining in effect until the case is finally resolved. The stay is conditioned on the petitioners filing a bond for $5,000 with approved surety, to be approved by a judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The bond is meant to cover damages and costs that the National Labor Relations Board or others may suffer if the petitioners fail to seek or obtain review or otherwise fail in the Supreme Court. The Court also dispensed with printing the record for consideration of the petition.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is to pause enforcement of the Ninth Circuit order while the petitioners seek Supreme Court review, but only if they meet the filing deadline and post the required bond. The National Labor Relations Board and third parties are provided a mechanism to recover costs if the stay causes harm. This order is procedural and temporary, not a final decision on the underlying legal issues.
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?