Several US Supreme Court justices indicated their favor towards Starbucks Corp. after the company contended that federal judges should review National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) request for injunctions in the same way they would for any other litigant’s bid for an immediate court order.
During Tuesday’s oral arguments, a split along ideological lines was evident amongst the justices. The conservative majority seemed to be opposing the NLRB’s argument that federal labor law calls for judges to apply a lenient standard to the agency’s petitions compared to a preliminary injunction motion in the course of private litigation.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, remarked that federal district courts have a duty to check the NLRB’s power to obtain injunctions, asserting their significance to be a “big deal”. The liberal minority of the court, indicated support for the NLRB’s view.
The standard that judges should use to weigh NLRB injunction petitions is currently under Supreme Court’s considerations. This will essentially determine if the agency’s capacity to obtain injunction orders will continue to be one of its most effective tools for safeguarding workers’ rights to organize and form unions.
Under unusual circumstances threatening to significantly impact the workplace due to alleged labor law violations, the NLRB requests 10(j) injunctions—named after the section of the National Labor Relations Act that permits the agency to pursue them. This rapid response prevents the board’s future remedy from being delayed to the extent that it can no longer rectify the harm caused by the violation. The injunctions dissolve when the board rules.
The injunctions could potentially become less effective in practice if persuading a court to issue such an order requires protracted and burdensome litigation. Starbucks has been a frequent target for such extraordinary injunction requests by the NLRB as a part of its efforts to enforce federal labor law, in response to the company’s aggressive opposition to unionization at its stores nationwide.
The court is setting out to resolve a circuit split over what kind of test courts should apply to 10(j) injunction requests. Amongst these circuits, five use a two-factor test specific to 10(j)s, four use a four-part test used commonly for other types of injunctions, and two use a hybrid standard that incorporates elements from both tests.
As per a Bloomberg Law analysis, the agency has won in court at approximately the same rate in recent years, irrespective of which test the court used. However, while briefing and during oral arguments, NLRB lawyers conceded that all four factors from the standard test for preliminary injunctions are relevant to the review of the agency’s request for a court order.
The case in question is the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney , and the primary contention is regarding the likelihood-of-success inquiry.