## Facts

- Employers sued a union in California state court, alleging strike activity breached collective bargaining agreements.
- The state court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 18, 1970, restraining strike activity.
- The union removed the action to federal district court on May 20, 1970.
- On June 4, 1970, the federal district court denied the union’s motion to dissolve the TRO.
- The dispute became inactive for several months, then the union resumed strike activity on November 30, 1970.
- On December 2, 1970, the district court found the union in criminal contempt for violating the TRO.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding the TRO expired no later than June 7, 1970, and could not support contempt for conduct in late November.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1450 keeps a state-court TRO in effect indefinitely after removal until dissolved or modified, or only for the limited period allowed by state law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
2. Whether, after removal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the future course of proceedings affecting the duration and handling of state-issued injunctive orders.
3. Whether criminal contempt may be imposed for violating a TRO that had expired before the alleged contemning conduct occurred.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the criminal contempt judgments.
- The Court held the TRO expired well before the November 30, 1970 strike activity, whether measured under California law or Rule 65(b).
- The Court held § 1450 preserves the effectiveness of pre-removal orders during the transfer to federal court but does not extend their duration beyond applicable state-law limits and, in any event, beyond Rule 65(b)’s time limits.
- The Court held that after removal, federal law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs subsequent proceedings.
- Because no valid TRO was in force at the time of the resumed strike, criminal contempt could not rest on alleged violations occurring then.

## Legal Principles

- After removal, federal law controls the future course of proceedings, including the treatment of pre-removal injunctive orders.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1450, pre-removal state-court injunctions and TROs remain effective in federal court to prevent a gap in protection during removal, but the statute does not enlarge their substantive effect or extend their permissible duration.
- A state-court ex parte TRO carried into federal court cannot outlast the time limits that would apply under state law and, in all events, cannot exceed the temporal restrictions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), measured from removal.
- Rule 65(b) imposes strict limits on ex parte TRO duration to ensure prompt transition to procedures requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Criminal contempt requires a valid, existing court order; contempt cannot be based on violations of an order that had expired.

## Conclusion

The Court held that removal does not convert a state-court ex parte TRO into an open-ended federal restraint: § 1450 preserves such orders only within the short time limits recognized by state law and Rule 65(b), and an expired TRO cannot support criminal contempt.


Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)