opinion: UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliated local unions, et al., Appellants, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees.
  No. 12943.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued March 5, 1956.
  Decided April 5, 1956.
  Mr. David Scribner, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellants. Messrs. Joseph Forer and David Rein, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellants.
  Mr. Edward H. Hickey, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Paul A. Sweeney and Howard E. Shapiro, Attorneys, Dept, of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees.
  Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit J udges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellants’ complaint asks a declaration that Sections 5 through 11 of the Communist Control Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775, [50 U.S.C.A. §§ 782, 784, 789, 791, 792a, 793, 844,] are invalid, and an injunction to restrain the Attorney General and the Subversive Activities Control Board from enforcing these sections against the plaintiff Union. The complaint says the Attorney General threatened to enforce them immediately, by filing a petition with the Board, and that irreparable harm to the Union and its members would result.
  The plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment for the defendants. Pending the appeal, the Attorney General petitioned the Board “for an order, after appropriate proceedings, determining that the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America is a Communist-infiltrated organization as defined by Section 3 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended by the Communist Control Act of 1954.”
  We see no pertinent exception to the usual rule that a court will not interfere with administrative proceedings, which are not on their face incapable of affording due process, before final administrative action adverse to the complainant has been taken. Communist Party v. McGrath, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 47.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Business or trade association utilities co-ops Professional association - other than law or medicine Legal professional association Medical professional association AFL-CIO union (private) Other private union Private Union - unable to determine whether in AFL-CIO Public employee union- in AFL-CIO (include groups called professional organizations if their role includes bargaining over wages and work conditions) Public Employee Union - not in AFL-CIO Public Employee Union - unable to determine if in AFL-CIO Union pension fund; other union funds (e.g., vacation funds) Other Unclear