Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich

510 U.S. 200 (1994)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich

United States Supreme Court
510 U.S. 200 (1994)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

Congress enacted the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 (the act) to protect the health and safety of miners. The secretary of labor (the secretary) (defendant) was tasked with enforcing the act, including conducting mine inspections while accompanied by a representative of the mine operator and a representative of the miners. Once the miners designated a representative, the mine operator was required to post information about the representative throughout the mine’s facilities. Challenges to enforcement actions under the act were reviewed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Commission (the commission), and further appeals were reviewed by the appropriate United States court of appeals. In 1990, although the employees of Thunder Basin Coal Company (Thunder Basin) (plaintiff) were not members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), the employees selected two UMWA employees as their miner representatives. Thunder Basin refused to post information about the UMWA representatives in its facilities, arguing that the employees’ designation of the UMWA representatives violated its rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (the administration) (defendant) ordered Thunder Basin to post the information. In response, Thunder Basin filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the secretary and the administration, seeking preenforcement injunctive relief from the administration’s order. Thunder Basin claimed that it would suffer irreparable harm if it was required to obey the administration’s order and post information about the UMWA representatives, because doing so would aid the UMWA in organizing Thunder Basin’s employees. The district court enjoined the administration’s order, finding that Thunder Basin had sufficiently shown that it might suffer irreparable harm if it was required to obey the order. The court of appeals reversed the district court. Thunder Basin appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership