258

Opinion of the Court.

In the case before us, the District Court had the power to preserve existing conditions while it was determining its own authority to grant injunctive relief. The defendants, in making their private determination of the law, acted at their peril. Their disobedience is punishable as criminal contempt.

Although a different result would follow were the question of jurisdiction frivolous and not substantial, such contention would be idle here. The applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the United States in a case such as this had not previously received judicial consideration, and both the language of the Act and its legislative history indicated the substantial nature of the problem with which the District Court was faced.

Proceeding further, we find impressive authority for the proposition that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings. This is true without regard even for the constitutionality of the Act under which the order is issued. In Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 189-90 (1922) this Court said:

58

"An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must

jurisdiction, which is often a close question, the federal court may either have to determine the facts, as in contested citizenship, or the law, as whether the case alleged arises under a law of the United States."

58 Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181 (1922); Russell v. United States, 86 F. 2d 389 (1936); Locke v. United States, 75 F. 2d 157 (1935); O'Hearne v. United States, 62 App. D. C. 285, 66 F. 2d 933 (1933); Schwartz v. United States, 217 F. 866 (1914); Brougham v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 205 F. 857 (1913); Blake v. Nesbet, 144 F. 279 (1905); see Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F. 2d 832, 833 (1930).

Opinion of the Court.

330 U.S.

be obeyed by them however erroneous the action of the court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished.' Violations of an order are punishable as criminal contempt even though the order is set aside on appeal, Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14 (1887), or though the basic action has become moot, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (1911).

60

59

We insist upon the same duty of obedience where, as here, the subject matter of the suit, as well as the parties, was properly before the court; where the elements of federal jurisdiction were clearly shown; and where the authority of the court of first instance to issue an order ancillary to the main suit depended upon a statute, the scope and applicability of which were subject to substantial doubt. The District Court on November 29 affirmatively decided that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was of no force in this case and that injunctive relief was therefore authorized. Orders outstanding or issued after that date were to be obeyed until they expired or were set aside by appropriate proceedings, appellate or otherwise. Convictions for criminal contempt intervening before that time may stand.

It does not follow, of course, that simply because a defendant may be punished for criminal contempt for dis

59 See Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F. 2d 832, 833 (1930).

60 See Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp., 86 F.2d 727 (1936).

258

Opinion of the Court.

obedience of an order later set aside on appeal, that the plaintiff in the action may profit by way of a fine imposed in a simultaneous proceeding for civil contempt based upon a violation of the same order. The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued, Worden v. Searls, supra, at 25, 26; Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp., 86 F. 2d 727 (1936); S. Anargyros v. Anargyros & Co., 191 F. 208 (1911); 1 and a fortiori when the injunction or restraining order was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Nor does the reason underlying United States v. Shipp, supra, compel a different result. If the NorrisLaGuardia Act were applicable in this case, the conviction for civil contempt would be reversed in its entirety.

Assuming, then, that the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied to this case and prohibited injunctive relief at the request of the United States, we would set aside the preliminary injunction of December 4 and the judgment for civil contempt; but we would, subject to any infirmities in the contempt proceedings or in the fines imposed, affirm the judgments for criminal contempt as validly punishing violations of an order then outstanding and unreversed.

III.

The defendants have pressed upon us the procedural aspects of their trial and allege error so prejudicial as to require reversal of the judgments for civil and criminal contempt. But we have not been persuaded.

61 See Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Co., 284 U. S. 448, 453 (1932); Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 329 (1904); McCann v. New York Stock Exchange, 80 F. 2d 211, 214 (1935). In accord in the case of settlement is Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 451-2 (1911): ". . . when the main cause was termi nated between the parties, the complainant did not require and was not entitled to any compensation or relief of any other character."

Opinion of the Court.

330 U.S.

The question is whether the proceedings will support judgments for both criminal and civil contempt; and our attention is directed to Rule 42 (b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule requires criminal contempt to be prosecuted on notice stating the essential facts constituting the contempt charged. In this respect, there was compliance with the rule here. Notice was given by a rule to show cause served upon defendants together with the Government's petition and supporting affidavit. The pleadings rested only upon information and belief, but Rule 42 (b) was not designed to cast doubt upon the propriety of instituting criminal contempt proceedings in this manner. The petition itself charged a violation of the outstanding restraining order, and the affidavit alleged in detail a failure to withdraw the notice of November 15, the cessation of work in the mines, and the consequent

62 18 U. S. C. A. following § 687. Rule 42 (b) regulates various aspects of a proceeding for criminal contempt where the contempt. is not committed in the actual presence of the court:

"DISPOSITION UPON NOTICE AND HEARING. A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the United States attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury in any case in which an act of Congress so provides. He is entitled to admission to bail as provided in these rules. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant's consent. Upon a verdict or finding of guilt the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment."

63 Conley v. United States, 59 F. 2d 929 (1932); Kelly v. United States, 250 F. 947 (1918); see National Labor Relations Board v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., 74 App. D. C. 361, 362, 122 F. 2d 964, 965 (1941).

258

Opinion of the Court.

interference with governmental functions and the jurisdiction of the court. The defendants were fairly and completely apprised of the events and conduct constituting the contempt charged.

However, Rule 42 (b) requires that the notice issuing to the defendants describe the criminal contempt charged as such. The defendants urge a failure to comply with this rule. The petition alleged a willful violation of the restraining order, and both the petition and the rule to show cause inquired as to why the defendants should not be "punished as and for a contempt" of court. But nowhere was the contempt described as criminal as required by the rule.

65

Nevertheless, the defendants were quite aware that a criminal contempt was charged." In their motion to discharge and vacate the rule to show cause, the contempt charged was referred to as criminal. And in argument on the motion the defendants stated and were expressly informed that a criminal contempt was to be tried. Yet it is now urged that the omission of the words "criminal contempt" from the petition and rule to show cause was prejudicial error. Rule 42 (b) requires no such rigorous appli

* It could be well argued that the use of the word "punished” in the petition and rule to show cause was in itself adequate notice, for "punishment" has been said to be the magic word indicating a proceeding in criminal, rather than civil, contempt. Moskovitz, Contempt of Injunctions, Civil and Criminal, 43 Col. L. Rev. 780, 78990 (1943). But "punishment" as used in contempt cases is ambiguous. "It is not the fact of punishment but rather its character and purpose Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441 (1941).

Noteworthy also is the allegation in the affidavit that the defendants' violation of the restraining order had "interfered with this Court's jurisdiction." And the charge in the petition of "wilfully ... and deliberately" disobeying the restraining order indicates an intention to prosecute criminal contempt.

65 See point 4, note 14, supra. The points and authorities in support of the motion used similar language.