In an oral argument on Tuesday, Justices appeared to lean towards Starbucks Corp. in the case of Starbucks Corp v. McKinney, a key labor dispute that has sparked controversy in legal circles.
The primary point of contention is what evidence the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should present in order to secure a preliminary injunction against an employer, in this case, Starbucks. As it currently stands, the labor board only has to present a legal theory that is ‘not frivolous’ and show ‘some evidence to support it’. This standard, fairly light compared to the four-factor test used in non-labor injunctions, drew significant attention during the argument. Yet, astonishingly, this lighter standard was barely defended during oral arguments before the Supreme Court, an observation reported by Ronald Mann on SCOTUS blog.
Members of the bench – notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor – voiced their concern for this issue. Justice Sotomayor expressed her understanding of the need for a correction in the current system. She shared her belief that the court should be the entity to decide the likelihood of success on the merits. Amongst her fellow Justices, this perspective was far from rare. Indeed, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole Justice supporting the NLRB on these grounds during the case.
Under such scrupulous questioning, the counsel for NLRB, Austin Raynor, declined to uphold the standard approved by the lower courts. His reticence to defend became even more apparent in comparison to Lisa Blatt’s argument for Starbucks. The main difference in their stance was the consideration of the NLRB’s decision to proceed with the issue as evidence that it would ultimately rule against Starbucks.
Regardless, even when taking a narrow perspective, the Justices appeared aligned, emphasising that court should follow their perceptions on the correct legal standards in deciding whether to issue an injunction. Justice Elena Kagan directly stated that the law should cater to the court’s interpretation.
When Raynor advocated for judicial deference to the NLRB’s stance, Justice Neil Gorsuch chaffed, “What’s wrong with the best judgment a neutral magistrate can issue?” By the end of the oral argument, most of the discussion seemed to focus on the exact wording for the opinion that would deny the injunction initially issued.
To conclude the argument, it seems that the Justices are inclined to side with the multinational coffee company Starbucks. Their reasoning revolves around several factors, including the violation of the NLRB’s standard by the lower courts and the argument’s overwhelming one-sidedness. This case might serve as a precedent for similar disputes in the future, so legal professionals all around the globe should keep an eye on it.