The Federal District Court enjoined the enforcement of a state
court injunction restraining union picketing in a railway labor
dispute. In view of the longstanding policy embodied in 28 U.S.C. §
2283 that a federal court, with limited exceptions, may not enjoin
state court proceedings, and the difficult and important question
presented here, the District Court's injunction is stayed pending
disposition of a petition for certiorari to be expeditiously filed
in this Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, Circuit Justice.
This is an application presented to me by the railroad to stay
enforcement of an injunction issued by the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against the enforcement of
a state court injunction restraining the union from picketing
around the Moncrief Yard in Florida, a classification yard owned by
the Seaboard Coast Line, the successor company to the Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad. The picketing is being carried on because of a
strike against the Florida East Coast Railway by its employees;
there is
Page 396 U. S. 1202
no dispute between the Seaboard Coast Line or the Atlantic Coast
Line and their employees. The union wishes to picket the Moncrief
Yard, however, because many of the Florida East Coast cars are
switched into it in order to carry on that railroad's business.
At the last Term of this Court, we had before us a question
involving the picketing of the Jacksonville Terminal Company at
Jacksonville, Florida, owned and operated by the Florida East
Coast, Seaboard, Atlantic Coast Line, and Southern railroads.
There, an injunction was granted in the Florida state courts to
restrain the union from picketing the entire terminal. This Court,
in a 4-to-3 opinion, decided that the picketing was protected by
federal law, and therefore could not be enjoined by Florida.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal
Co., 394 U. S. 369
(1969). The union here substantially relies on that case, insisting
that it has the same federally protected right to picket at the
Moncrief Yard that this Court held it could exercise at the
Jacksonville Terminal. The District Court here enjoined
the railroad from utilizing a state court injunction against
picketing at Moncrief, and refused the railroad's request to stay
the effectiveness of its injunction pending appeal. The Court of
Appeals, however, did grant an application to suspend the
effectiveness of the District Court injunction for ten days, which
expires tomorrow, July 17. The question before me is whether I
should suspend the effectiveness of that injunction pending a
review of the District Court's judgment.
Since 1793, a congressional enactment, now found in 28 U.S.C. §
2283, has broadly provided that federal courts cannot, with certain
limited exceptions, enjoin state court proceedings. Whether this
longstanding policy is violated by the District Court's injunction
here presents what appears to me to be a close, highly complex, and
difficult question. Not only does it present
Page 396 U. S. 1203
a difficult problem but one of widespread importance, the
solution of which might broadly affect the economy of the State of
Florida, the United States, and interstate commerce. Under these
circumstances, I do not feel justified in permitting the District
Court injunction to be enforced, changing the
status quo
at Moncrief Yard, until this Court can act for itself on the
questions that will be presented in the railroad's forthcoming
petition for certiorari. For this reason, an order will be issued
staying the enforcement of the District Court injunction pending
disposition of the petition for certiorari in this Court. To
accomplish this result without undue delay it will be the duty of
the railroad to expedite all actions necessary to present its
petition for certiorari here.