29 U.S.C. § 52

Statutory restriction of injunctive relief

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

No restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or to a property right, of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be described with particularity in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his agent or attorney.

And no such restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons, whether singly or in concert, from terminating any relation of employment, or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from attending at any place where any such person or persons may lawfully be, for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or from peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful and lawful means so to do; or from paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person engaged in such dispute, any strike benefits or other moneys or things of value; or from peaceably assembling in a lawful manner, and for lawful purposes; or from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto; nor shall any of the acts specified in this paragraph be considered or held to be violations of any law of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 254 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines (1985) caed · cites it 9× “§§ 17 and 29 U.S.C. § 52 , to exempt labor organizations and certain of their activities from the reach of the Act.”

Brady v. National Football League (2011) ca8 · cites it 12× “The Supreme Court has explained that the NLGA responded directly to the Court's construction of § 20 of the Clayton Act of 1914, 29 U.S.C. § 52 , in Duplex Printing Press Co.”

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1970) scotus · cites it 7× “§ 101 , and the Clayton Act, 29 U. S. C. § 52 , are applicable to the conduct of the defendants here involved.”

National Labor Relations Board v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (1984) scotus · cites it 4× “§ 17 ; 29 U. S. C. § 52 . [11] There followed, in 1932, the Norris-La Guardia Act, which declared that "the individual .”

Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters (1983) scotus · cites it 2× “[43] See 29 U. S. C. § 52 (statutory labor exemption); Mine Workers v.”

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. (1996) scotus · cites it 4× “738 , 29 U. S. C. § 52 ); see also United States v.”

Jeffers v. United States (1977) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 894 (a) (Code of Military Justicemutiny or sedition); 29 U. S. C. §§ 52 , 104, 105 (Norris-LaGuardia Act); 46 U.”

H. A. Artists & Associates, Inc. v. Actors' Equity Ass'n (1981) scotus · cites it 4× “" 29 U. S. C. § 52 . This protection is re-emphasized and expanded in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits federal-court injunctions against single or organized employees engaged in enumerated activities, [14] and specifically forbids such injunctions notwithstanding the…”

United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947) scotus · cites it 2× “Accordingly, it being for criminal contempt, the Petition should have been presented as an independent proceeding and not as supplemental to the original cause.”

Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n (1982) scotus · cites it 2× “*708 Congress adopted this broad prohibition to remedy the growing tendency of federal courts to enjoin strikes by narrowly construing the Clayton Act's labor exemption from the Sherman Act's prohibition against conspiracies to restrain trade, see 29 U. S. C. § 52 . See, e. g.,…”

Mid-America Regional Bargaining Association v. Will County Carpenters District Council (1982) ca7 · cites it 4× “The court found that the only direct restraint alleged in the complaint was a restraint in the market for human labor.”

United States v. Hutcheson (1941) scotus · cites it 2× “738 , 29 U.S.C. § 52 : "No restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed…”

Show all 254 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.