The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown  to restrain violations of section
331 of this title, except paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).
(b) Violation of injunction
In case of violation of an injunction or restraining order issued under this section, which also constitutes a violation of this chapter, trial shall be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury.
 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–80, § 3(d)(1), struck out “, and subject to the provisions of section
17 (relating to notice to opposite party) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes’, approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title
381),” after “for cause shown”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–80, § 3(d)(2), struck out at end “Such trial shall be conducted in accordance with the practice and procedure applicable in the case of proceedings subject to the provisions of section 22 of such Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title
1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–781, § 103(d), struck out “(e),” after “paragraphs”.
Amendment by section 103(c) ofPub. L. 87–781effective on first day of seventh calendar month following October 1962, see section 107 ofPub. L. 87–781, set out as a note under section
321 of this title.
Section 203 of title II of Pub. L. 87–781provided that: “The amendments made by this title [amending this section and section
374 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections
374 of this title] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 10, 1962].”
The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.