NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAnti-Injunction ActFederal pre-emptionNational Labor Relations Board28 U.S.C. § 2283Anti-Injunction ActNLRBimplied authority

Facts

A union organizing employees of certain Grand Island, Nebraska stores filed unfair labor practice charges against Nash-Finch, and the General Counsel issued a complaint. Before the Board acted on the Trial Examiner's recommendation, the union began picketing the stores, and the company obtained a Nebraska state court injunction regulating that picketing in detail, including limits on the number of pickets, where they could stand, what literature could be distributed, and who could picket. The Board later entered its own decision in the unfair labor practice matter. The Board then brought this federal suit, asserting that the state injunction regulated conduct committed exclusively to federal labor law.

Issue

Whether the NLRB may obtain a federal injunction against enforcement of a state court order regulating peaceful picketing on the theory that the conduct is within a field pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act, despite the bar of 28 U.S.C. § 2283. More specifically, the question was whether the Board falls within an implied exception to § 2283 recognized for the United States or otherwise has implied authority to seek such relief.

Rule

Although 28 U.S.C. § 2283 generally bars federal injunctions staying state court proceedings, the NLRB has implied authority to seek such an injunction when state action intrudes into a field pre-empted by the Board's federal regulatory power. The "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception is narrow and does not cover a suit based only on general pre-emption rather than on pending federal court jurisdiction over specific conduct the Board has asked a federal court to enjoin.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, employees of Rivergate Foods began peaceful leafleting outside several grocery stores operated by Meridian Market Group, a fictional retailer. After a county court entered an order restricting the number of leafleters and where they could stand, the National Labor Relations Board filed in federal district court to bar enforcement of the state order, alleging the conduct fell within a labor field pre-empted by federal law.

Which is the best argument for allowing the federal suit to proceed despite 28 U.S.C. § 2283?

Explanation. The majority held that even though the case did not fall within the narrow statutory exception for injunctions "necessary in aid of" jurisdiction, the Board nevertheless has implied authority to seek a federal injunction against state action where federal labor law pre-empts the field. The reasoning was that § 2283 was aimed chiefly at avoiding conflict in private-party litigation, not at disabling a federal agency charged with protecting a national interest embodied in a federal regulatory scheme.