RESPONDENT: Reich, Secretary Of Labor, et al.
DOCKET NO.: 92-896
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CITATION: 510 US 200 (1994)
ARGUED: Oct 05, 1993
DECIDED: Jan 19, 1994
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace - argued the cause for respondents
George N. Davies - for the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, as amicus curiae urging affirmance
J. Michael Klise - for the American Mining Congress et al. as amici curiae urging reversal
Lawrence G. Wallace - on behalf of the Respondents
Mary Lu Jordan - for the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, as amicus curiae urging affirmance
Patrick K. Nakamura - for the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, as amicus curiae urging affirmance
Robert H. Stropp, Jr. - for the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, as amicus curiae urging affirmance
Timothy M. Biddle - for the American Mining Congress et al. as amici curiae urging reversal
Wayne S. Bishop - on behalf of the Petitioner
Facts of the case
Media for Thunder Basin Coal Company v. ReichAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 05, 1993 in Thunder Basin Coal Company v. Reich
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 19, 1994 in Thunder Basin Coal Company v. Reich
William H. Rehnquist:
The opinion of the Court in No. 92-896, Thunder Basin Coal Company against Reich will be announced by Justice Blackmun.
Harry A. Blackmun:
The petitioner, Thunder Basin Coal Company, is what its name implies a coal mining company.
Its workforce is non union but that force designated two employees of the United Mine Workers, to serve as miners' representatives under a statute, which is in 30 U.S. code section 813(f).
The company refused to post information about this as required by a Department of Labor Regulation and instead it files suit in District Court and obtained an injunction preventing the enforcement of the regulation.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
It held that the District Court jurisdiction was precluded by the administrative review scheme of the Mine Act, which provides for a review commission and then further review by the appropriate Court of Appeals.
The company contends that requiring it to challenge the interpretation to the statutory review procedures violates the Due Process Clause.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
We hold that the Mine Act's review scheme precludes a District Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement challenge to the Act.
Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment and has joined therein by Justice Thomas.