| Litigants: | United States v. United Mine Workers |
| Arguedate: | January 14 |
| Argueyear: | 1947 |
| Decidedate: | March 6 |
| Decideyear: | 1947 |
| Fullname: | United States v. United Mine Workers of America |
| Usvol: | 330 |
| Uspage: | 258 |
| Parallelcitations: | 67 S. Ct. 677; 91 L. Ed. 884; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2954; 12 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 51,239; 19 L.R.R.M. 2346 |
| Prior: | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia |
| Holding: |
|
| Plurality: | Vinson |
| Joinplurality: | Reed, Jackson, Burton |
| Concurrence: | Frankfurter |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Black |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Douglas |
| Dissent: | Murphy |
| Dissent2: | Rutledge |
United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court examined whether a trial court acted appropriately when it issued a restraining order to prevent a labor strike organized by coal miners.[1] In an opinion written by Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, the Court held that a restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting a strike did not violate the Clayton Antitrust Act or the Norris–La Guardia Act,[2] that the trial court was authorized to punish the violation of its orders as criminal contempt,[3] and that fines imposed by the trial court were warranted in the situation.[2]