The Supreme Court has issued a decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, siding with Starbucks over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a union organizing dispute. The case revolved around the requirements the NLRB must meet to obtain a preliminary injunction against an employer during administrative proceedings to determine if the employer engaged in unfair labor practices.
In an eight-to-one decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas authoring the majority opinion, the Court rejected the highly deferential standard previously applied by lower courts. Justice Thomas emphasized that the statutory language of Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act—which allows courts to issue preliminary injunctions when deemed “just and proper”—must be interpreted in line with traditional equitable principles.
Thomas leaned on the four criteria identified in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, highlighting that preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies that require a “clear showing” of likelihood of success on the merits. The majority opinion decisively stated that courts should not depart from these traditional principles absent clear congressional intent.
The ruling also touched on the NLRB’s argument that the statute’s context warranted a special application of equitable considerations. Justice Thomas dismissed this, noting that the NLRB’s preferred standard “goes far beyond simply fine-tuning the traditional criteria” by substantially lowering the bar for securing a preliminary injunction.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the decision to remand the case to the lower courts but dissented from part of the reasoning, arguing that the majority opinion ignored Congress’s clear directives under the NLRA. She emphasized her opposition to what she described as an “aggrandizement of judicial power.” For more detailed analysis, visit SCOTUSblog.