503 Opinion of the Court. The falsification here involved was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Disbursing Office of the House which it was thought could not meet the definitions in § 6. It seemed significant to the trial court "that Title 18, § 287 (formerly the first part of old Section 35) provides penalties against any one who 'makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim . . . knowing such claim to be false,'" whereas § 1001 does not contain such language. 120 F. Supp., at 861. It might be argued that the matter here involved was within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, as the appellee's misstatements would require the payment of funds from the United States Treasury. Or, viewing this as a matter within the jurisdiction of the Disbursing Office, it might be argued, as the Government does, that that body is an "authority" within the § 6 definition of "agency." We do not rest our decision on either of those interpretations. The context in which this language is used calls for an unrestricted interpretation. This is enforced by its legislative history. It would do violence to the purpose of Congress to limit the section to falsifications made to the executive departments. Congress could not have intended to leave frauds such as this without penalty. The development, scope and purpose of the section shows that "department," as used in this context, was meant to describe the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government. The difference between the language of § 287 and that of § 1001 can only be understood in the light of legislative history. That history dispels the possibility of attaching any significance to the difference. That criminal statutes are to be construed strictly is a proposition which calls for the citation of no authority. Opinion of the Court. 348 U.S. But this does not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature. The judgment below is accordingly Reversed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BURTON and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 9 Cf. United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537; Spivey v. United States, 109 F. 2d 181. Syllabus. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL. v. RICHMAN BROTHERS CO. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 173. Argued March 4, 7, 1955.-Decided April 4, 1955. Without applying to the National Labor Relations Board for relief, a corporation engaged in interstate commerce sued in a state court to enjoin a labor union from peacefully picketing the corporation's places of business, on the ground that such conduct constituted a common-law conspiracy and a statutory and common-law restraint of trade in violation of state law. Claiming that the matter was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and that the state court had no jurisdiction, the union sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin the corporation from further prosecution of its suit in the state court, basing jurisdiction on 28 U. S. C. §§ 1337 and 1651. Held: Under 28 U. S. C. § 2283, the Federal District Court was denied power to enjoin the proceedings in the state court. Pp. 512-521. 1. The clear-cut prohibition of § 2283 against a federal court granting an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court cannot be held inapplicable whenever a party applying to a Federal District Court to enjoin proceedings in a state court alleges that the state court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter because it has invaded a field pre-empted by Congress. Pp. 514-516. 2. The specific exception in § 2283 which permits an injunction to issue "as expressly authorized by Act of Congress" is not applicable to this case. The Taft-Hartley Act authorizes the National Labor Relations Board and its representatives to apply to a District Court for injunctive relief in certain circumstances; but it does not authorize private litigants to apply for such relief. Pp. 516-519. 3. Nor is this case within the specific exception to § 2283 which permits a federal court to issue an injunction "where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction." Pp. 519-521. 211 F. 2d 449, affirmed. Opinion of the Court. 348 U.S. William J. Isaacson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Louis H. Pollak. By special leave of Court, Philip Elman argued the cause for the National Labor Relations Board, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, David P. Findling, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come. Luther Day argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. In Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, decided last Monday on writ of certiorari to the Missouri Supreme Court, we considered the jurisdiction of a state court to enjoin conduct which in one aspect brought it within exclusive federal authority under the Taft-Hartley Act and in another constituted a violation of a state statute against restraint of trade. In this case we have to decide the question whether, under similar circumstances, a union has open to it, without resorting to the appellate procedures of the State and eventually of this Court, jurisdiction of a federal district court to enjoin the employer from pursuing his action in the state court. Petitioner, an unincorporated association of clothing workers, was responsible for peaceful picketing of a number of respondent's retail stores, presumably to compel its factory employees to join the union. Respondent, an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of men's clothing in interstate commerce, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, alleging that the union's conduct constituted a commonlaw conspiracy as well as a statutory and common-law restraint of trade. It prayed for temporary and permanent injunctions. The union brought proceedings to 511 Opinion of the Court. remove the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the employer's petition alleged facts bringing the case within the original jurisdiction of the District Court as a civil action arising under the Taft-Hartley Act. 28 U. S. C. § 1337. That court remanded the action to the state court on the ground that if, as the union contended, the complaint in effect alleged a violation of § 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Taft-Hartley Act, under the decision in Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, only the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction of its subject matter. Richman Brothers Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 114 F. Supp. 185, rehearing denied, 116 F. Supp. 800. Upon remand, the union invoked the ground taken by the District Court in denying its jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss the action in the state court. This motion was denied without opinion. The union then filed this complaint in the same District Court seeking an injunction which would require the employer to withdraw the action commenced in the state court. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U. S. C. § 1337. This provision confers jurisdiction on federal courts over any civil action arising under any Act of Congress regulating interstate commerce. The union also relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1651, the all-writs section. The District Court held that under 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which prohibits federal injunctions against state court proceedings, it was without power to grant the requested relief, inasmuch as the action did not come within any of the exceptions to that general prohibition. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed, 211 F. 2d 449. The jurisdictional question is plainly important in this area of federal-state relations and we granted certiorari, 348 U. S. 813. Subsequent to the affirmance by the Court of Appeals, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on the employer's motion for a temporary injunction. Rich |