## Facts

- An employer in a labor dispute obtained an ex parte state-court restraining order enjoining peaceful picketing while an unfair labor practice charge was pending before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- Merritt W. Green, an Ohio attorney representing the union, believed the ex parte order was invalid under state law and that the dispute fell within the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- Green advised the union to continue picketing to test the order and, if contempt sanctions followed, to seek review by appeal or habeas corpus.
- The union continued picketing, and the state court held Green in contempt for disobeying or resisting the restraining order.
- Although Green was given some opportunity to be heard, the contempt proceeding was limited to sentencing and he was not allowed to testify in his own behalf.
- Green sought habeas relief in state court; the Supreme Court of Ohio denied relief, and the case proceeded on review to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause permits a state court to convict and sentence an attorney for contempt without a meaningful hearing, including an opportunity to present testimony, when the attorney seeks to show the court acted in a field reserved to the NLRB.
2. Whether due process requires an opportunity to develop and present a federal labor-law preemption (exclusive NLRB jurisdiction) contention before contempt punishment is imposed.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment denying habeas relief.
- The Court held that convicting Green of contempt without a hearing that allowed him to try to establish that the state court acted in a field reserved for the NLRB violated due process.
- The Court emphasized that a hearing must allow a meaningful chance to present evidence on the contested jurisdictional basis for the contempt sanction.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before contempt punishment is imposed, particularly where the alleged contemnor challenges the tribunal’s lawful authority to act.
- A proceeding that effectively limits participation to sentencing, while barring the contemnor from testifying or presenting a factual basis for a jurisdictional objection, fails minimum due process.
- When a substantial claim is raised that state judicial action intrudes into conduct arguably subject to exclusive NLRB authority, due process requires an opportunity to attempt to establish that contention before contempt sanctions may stand.

## Conclusion

A state court may not punish an attorney for contempt without providing a meaningful hearing, including an opportunity to present testimony aimed at showing that the state court’s order intruded upon matters reserved to the NLRB; denying that opportunity violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.


In re Green, 369 U.S. 689 (1962)