Liner v. Jafco, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsLabor preemptionMootnessSupreme Court review of state judgmentsmootnessArticle IIIfederal preemptionNLRA

Facts

A Chattanooga building trades council authorized a Hod-Carriers union member, Liner, to engage in peaceful picketing at a Tennessee shopping-center construction site operated by Rea Construction, an open-shop contractor paying below union scale. Jafco, the project owner, obtained an ex parte state-court injunction against the picketing and filed a bond promising to pay damages if the injunction had been wrongfully sued out. The petitioners argued that the dispute was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, but the Tennessee courts rejected that argument and upheld the injunction. By the time the state appellate court ruled, construction had been completed, and it said the case was moot.

Issue

Whether the completion of construction made the case moot so as to bar Supreme Court review of the federal preemption claim, and whether the Tennessee courts had jurisdiction to enjoin the peaceful picketing. More specifically, the question was whether the picketing involved a matter at least arguably within the National Labor Relations Act, thereby placing it within the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board.

Rule

Mootness is a federal question when a state court judgment is challenged as denying a federal right, and a case is not moot if the parties retain a substantial stake in the judgment's legal consequences. In labor cases, when the conduct in question is at least arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, state courts have no jurisdiction to issue injunctions or adjudicate the controversy because Congress committed such matters exclusively to the National Labor Relations Board.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, Riverfront Market Partners obtained a state-court injunction stopping peaceful union handbilling at a warehouse project run by Graystone Builders. To get the injunction, Riverfront posted a bond promising to pay damages if the injunction was wrongfully issued. By the time the case reached the highest state court, the project was finished and the court dismissed the case as moot.

If the union seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of its federal preemption argument, what is the best analysis?

Explanation. A case is not moot when the parties retain a substantial stake in the legal consequences of the judgment. Where an injunction bond provides damages if the injunction was wrongfully sued out, the enjoined party continues to have a concrete interest in whether the injunction was valid. That continuing stake permits Supreme Court review of the federal preemption question despite the end of the underlying construction activity. (Derived from Liner v. Jafco, Inc. (1964).)