U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— CONCILIATION OF LABOR DISPUTES; NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

29 U.S.C. § 178

Injunctions during national emergency

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Petition to district court by Attorney General on direction of PresidentUpon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out—(i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce; and(ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders as may be appropriate.(b) Inapplicability of chapter 6

In any case, the provisions of chapter 6 of this title shall not be applicable.

(c) Review of orders

The order or orders of the court shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States court of appeals and by the Supreme Court upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

(June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title II, § 208, 61 Stat. 155; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Chapter 6 (§ 101 et seq.) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), is a reference to act Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70, popularly known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

Codification

In subsec. (c), “court of appeals” substituted for “circuit court of appeals” on authority of act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949. The words “United States” immediately preceding “Court of appeals” were inserted on authority of section 43 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

In subsec. (c), “section 1254 of title 28” substituted for “sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C. title 28, secs. 346 and 347)” on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, section 1 of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975). · cites it 4× “§§ 176-180 , it did not merely state that the jurisdiction of district courts under those circumstances is not limited by Norris-LaGuardia.”
United Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959). · cites it 4× “155 , 29 U. S. C. § 178 . We granted certiorari, post, p.”
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). “” 29 U. S. C. § 178 (a). And, courts evaluating preliminary-injunction requests under the Prison Litigation Reform Act must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of Page Proof Pending Publication a criminal justice system.”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, & Its Dist. Lodge 100 v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 826 F.2d 1141 (1st Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 160 (prevention of unfair labor practices), 8 and those in the statute authorizing injunctions during national emergencies, 29 U.S.C. § 178 , 9 are not common. Judicially created exceptions to the anti-injunction ban are equally rare.”
Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 258 F. Supp. 3d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “2d 12 (1959); 29 U.S.C. § 178 (a)(ii). The threats posed by violations of the TCPA are not so grave as to justify similar treatment.”
Raymond Crilly v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth. & United Transp. Union, Local 1594, 529 F.2d 1355 (3rd Cir. 1976). “11 If the cross reference was read literally, supervisor unions would fall outside the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, in particular the emergency strike injunction provisions of § 208, 29 U.S.C. § 178 . In United States v. National Marine Eng’rs Beneficial…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, 353 U.S. 87 (1957). “155 , 29 U. S. C. § 178 (power to enjoin “strike or lock-out” in case of national emergency).”
Philadelphia Hous. Auth. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 620 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 199 (1970), or a situation where a strike will affect an entire industry or a substantial *31 part thereof and imperil the national health, safety or welfare, see 29 U.S.C. § 178 , a strike will not be enjoined.”
United States v. United Steelworkers of Am., 271 F.2d 676 (3rd Cir. 1959). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C.A. § 178 . The purposes of the Act are set out in Section 141(b) as follows: “Industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of commerce and with the full production of articles and commodities for commerce, can be avoided or substantially minimized if…”
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). “” 29 U. S. C. §178 (a). And, courts evaluating preliminary-injunction requests un- der the Prison Litigation Reform Act must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the opera- tion of a criminal justice system.”
Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Auto. Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local No. 88, 349 P.2d 76 (Cal. 1960). “That section provides that a district court, on petition of the Attorney General at the President’s direction, has jurisdiction to enjoin a strike or lock-out “and to make such other orders as may be appropriate,’’ if the court finds that such strike or lock-out affects an…”
United States v. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 77 F. Supp. 563 (D.D.C. 1948). “After-receipt and full consideration of the report,, the President, acting under section 208 of' the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 178 , directed the Attorney General of the United States to institute this action on the part of the United States of America for an injunction against *569…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.