What was one consequence of the use of court injunctions during labor strikes, as seen in Debs' circumstance?

The use of court injunctions during labor strikes, particularly in the case of Eugene V. Debs and the American Railway Union during the Pullman Strike of 1894, served as a significant legal mechanism that employers could wield against unions and striking workers. Court injunctions were orders from the court that prohibited certain actions, in this case, restraining the striking workers from continuing their strike and often prohibiting them from interfering with the operation of railroads.

This legal power allowed employers to effectively undermine labor actions. When the courts sided with businesses, as they often did during this period, it demonstrated a bias towards maintaining economic stability and protecting the interests of employers over the rights of workers to organize and engage in collective actions. Consequently, courts invoked injunctions to cripple union efforts, making it exceedingly difficult for workers to assert their rights, compel negotiations, or achieve better working conditions. This practice not only represented the judicial endorsement of employer rights over those of labor but also highlighted the growing tensions between capital and labor during the late 19th century.